[Protest of Proposed Army Contract Award]
B-211788: Aug 29, 1983
- Full Report:
A firm protested the proposed award of a contract under a solicitation issued by the Army for the repair and modernization of a pier barge hull. The record showed that the contracting officer noted a mistake in the proposed awardee's bid in that both the bid unit price and the extended price were the same and asked for verification of the bid. The proposed awardee replied that there was a mistake in its bid unit price but that its extended bid price was correct and submitted worksheets in support of this claim. The solicitation provided that, if there was a discrepancy between a unit price and the extended price, the unit price was to be presumed correct. The protester contended that: (1) the contracting officer had to resort to examining the proposed awardee's worksheets to determine whether the unit price or the extended price was the protester's intended bid; and (2) the contracting officer's decision to allow the proposed awardee to correct its bid unit price violated the terms of the solicitation and competitive bidding procedures. GAO has held that correction of a bid can be allowed where, as in the case of the proposed awardee's bid, the intended price is clear from the face of the bid. Accordingly, the contracting officer properly allowed correction of the proposed awardee's bid, and the protest was denied.