Skip to Highlights
Highlights

A BIDDER WHO ALLEGES THAT HE ERRED IN NOT SHOWING THE SAME PRICE FOR THE SAME WORK IN ONE OF HIS BIDS MAY HAVE BOTH BIDS EXAMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MISTAKE IN ONE OF THEM. SINCE THE BID DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES SHOW THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE AND THAT THE INTENDED PRICE FOR THE ITEM WAS THE SAME AS THAT QUOTED IN THE ALTERNATE SCHEDULE. 1962: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 4. THE WORK WAS ADVERTISED UNDER SCHEDULES A AND B AND THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT THE SCHEDULE B BASE BID. ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 5 AND 7 APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN OMITTED. THE SCHEDULE B BID IS A REPETITION OF THE SCHEDULE A BID PLUS ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 1 THROUGH 4 AND. SCHEDULES A AND B ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AND DIFFER ONLY SLIGHTLY IN THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNDER SEVERAL UNIT PRICE ITEMS.

View Decision

B-147881, JANUARY 22, 1962, 41 COMP. GEN. 469

BIDS - MISTAKES - CORRECTION - ALTERNATE BID COMPARISON UNDER AN INVITATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FACILITY WHICH REQUIRES BIDDERS TO SUBMIT TWO SEPARATE BIDS (ALTERNATES) FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WORK UNDER EACH BID BUT DOES NOT GIVE THE BIDDERS ANY CHOICE AS TO WHICH ALTERNATE MIGHT BE ACCEPTED, A BIDDER WHO ALLEGES THAT HE ERRED IN NOT SHOWING THE SAME PRICE FOR THE SAME WORK IN ONE OF HIS BIDS MAY HAVE BOTH BIDS EXAMINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MISTAKE IN ONE OF THEM; THEREFORE, SINCE THE BID DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES SHOW THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE AND THAT THE INTENDED PRICE FOR THE ITEM WAS THE SAME AS THAT QUOTED IN THE ALTERNATE SCHEDULE, THE BID MAY BE CORRECTED AND CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, JANUARY 22, 1962:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 4, 1962, FROM THE CHIEF, CONTRACTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, FURNISHING A REPORT RELATIVE TO THE PROTEST OF ALGERNON BLAIR, INCORPORATED, AGAINST THE POSSIBLE CORRECTION OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. ENG- 01-076-62-24, ISSUED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MOBILE, ALABAMA.

THE INVITATION REQUESTED BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY AT REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA. THE WORK WAS ADVERTISED UNDER SCHEDULES A AND B AND THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT THE SCHEDULE B BASE BID, WITH OR WITHOUT ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 6, 8 AND 9, WOULD BE SELECTED FOR AWARD IF WITHIN AVAILABLE FUNDS. ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 5 AND 7 APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN OMITTED. THE SCHEDULE B BID IS A REPETITION OF THE SCHEDULE A BID PLUS ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 1 THROUGH 4 AND, IN ADDITION, INCLUDES ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 6, 8 AND 9. EXCEPT FOR ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 6, 8 AND 9, SCHEDULES A AND B ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AND DIFFER ONLY SLIGHTLY IN THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNDER SEVERAL UNIT PRICE ITEMS. ITEM 1 OF SCHEDULE A AND ITEM 81 OF SCHEDULE B DESIGNATE BY FAR THE LARGEST INDIVIDUAL ITEM OF WORK, THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY BUILDING ITSELF. APPARENTLY THIS BUILDING IS IDENTICAL UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES AND ALL PARTIES SO AGREE. LUMP -SUM QUOTATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING ( ITEM 1 AND ITEM 81). THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHER ITEMS UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES REQUIRES UNIT PRICES BASED UPON THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES SPECIFIED. HOWEVER, LUMP-SUM BIDS ARE REQUIRED FOR SEVERAL ITEMS, SUCH AS THE GUARDHOUSE, CLEARING AND GRUBBING, STEAM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL WORK. FOLLOWING ITEM 80 OF SCHEDULE A, AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6, SPACE IS PROVIDED FOR SHOWING THE AGGREGATE TOTAL FOR THE SCHEDULE A BID PLUS ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 1 THROUGH 4 ( ITEMS 1 THROUGH 80). SCHEDULE B COMMENCES WITH ITEM 81 AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7 OF THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE.

EIGHT BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED AT THE APPOINTED TIME, 11:00 A.M., DECEMBER 15, 1961, AND, SINCE THE APPARENT LOW BID ( ALGERNON BLAIR) ON SCHEDULE B IS WITHIN THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THE PROJECT, AWARD ON SCHEDULE B IS INDICATED. WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE A COMPLETE ABSTRACT OF ALL THE BIDS RECEIVED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE THREE APPARENT LOW BIDDERS ON SCHEDULE B AND THE GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY QUOTED AMOUNTS FOR THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY BUILDING UNDER ITEM 1 AND ITEM 81, AND AGGREGATE TOTAL PRICES UNDER SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B, AS FOLLOWS:

CHART

TOTAL FOR TOTAL FOR

BID NO. ITEM 1 SCHEDULE A ITEM 81 SCHEDULE B 1. ( GREENHUT) $2,890,000.00 $3,781,871.10 $3,781,871.10 $4,840,180.04 3. ( BLAIR) 3,000,462.00 3,823,259.00 3,002,224.00 3,990,771.50 5. 3,176,693.00 3,959,750.95 3,167,693.00 4,121,386.55 7. 3,140,000.00 3,964,149.00 3,140,000.00 4,159,322.00

IT IS REPORTED THAT THREE OF THE OTHER FOUR BIDDERS QUOTED THE SAME PRICES FOR THE BUILDING ( ITEMS NO. 1 AND 81) UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES; THAT THE OTHER BIDDER QUOTED A HIGHER PRICE FOR THE BUILDING UNDER ITEM 81 THAN HE DID UNDER ITEM 1; AND THAT HE ADVISED BY TELEGRAM, RECEIVED AFTER THE OPENING OF THE BIDS, THAT THIS WAS A MISTAKE AND THAT THE PRICE FOR ITEM 81 SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS ITEM 1. THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE FOR THE BUILDING UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES IS IDENTICAL.

IT IS REPORTED THAT MR. GREENHUT OF THE GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HANDED HIS BID IN AT THE APPOINTED PLACE FOR RECEIVING BIDS APPROXIMATELY 2 MINUTES BEFORE THE OPENING TIME OF 11:00 A.M., AND THAT HE LEFT THE ROOM. APPROXIMATELY 10 SECONDS BEFORE 11:00 A.M., MR. GREENHUT RUSHED BACK INTO THE ROOM AND STARTED TO EXPLAIN THAT HE HAD DISCOVERED AN ERROR IN THE TOTALS OF HIS BID BUT, BEFORE HE COULD FINISH EXPLAINING THE ERROR, THE TIME FOR OPENING THE BIDS HAD ARRIVED AND HE WAS INFORMED THAT IT WAS TOO LATE TO AMEND HIS BID. IMMEDIATELY AFTER OPENING THE BIDS MR. GREENHUT ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN INSERTING THE WRONG FIGURE OPPOSITE ITEM 81 OF SCHEDULE B. THE SUBJECT WAS FURTHER DISCUSSED WITH THE CHIEF OF SUPPLY DIVISION WHO ADVISED MR. GREENHUT TO REDUCE HIS ALLEGATIONS TO WRITING AND FURNISH SUPPORTING WORKSHEETS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS ALLEGATION.

THEREAFTER, BY TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 15 AND LETTER OF DECEMBER 18, 1961, THE GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONFIRMED ITS ALLEGATION OF ERROR AND SUBMITTED ITS DETAILED WORKSHEETS INDICATING THAT HE HAD ESTIMATED THE COST OF THE BUILDING AT $2,890,000, THE AMOUNT QUOTED FOR ITEM 1 OF SCHEDULE A. THE COMPANY ALSO SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS EXPLAINING THE ERROR AND HOW IT OCCURRED. IN SUBSTANCE, IT IS ALLEGED THAT DUE TO THE LAST MINUTE STRESS IN PREPARING THE MULTITUDE OF ITEM PRICES, THE CONFUSION OF OBTAINING LAST MINUTE QUOTATIONS FROM SUBCONTRACTORS AND THE NECESSITY OF GETTING THE BID IN ON TIME, THE UNIT PRICES WERE FILLED IN AND SOME OF THE LARGER LUMP-SUM ITEMS WERE LEFT OPEN FOR INSERTING PRICES AT THE LAST MINUTE, AND THAT IN SO DOING THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF $3,781,871.10 FOR THE SCHEDULE A BID, INCLUDING ADDITIVE ALTERNATES 1 THROUGH 4, AS SHOWN BELOW ITEM 80 ON PAGE 6, WAS CARRIED FORWARD AND INSERTED AS THE PRICE FOR ITEM 81 OF THE SCHEDULE B BID, RATHER THAN THE INTENDED PRICE OF $2,890,000 AS SHOWN OPPOSITE ITEM 1 OF SCHEDULE A. IT IS ALLEGED THAT THIS IS AN OBVIOUS CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THAT THE PRICE FOR ITEM 81 OF THE SCHEDULE B BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS ITEM 1 OF THE SCHEDULE A BID. CORRECTION OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE IS REQUESTED AND, IF SUCH CORRECTION IS PERMITTED, GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN ADDITION TO BEING THE LOW BIDDER ON THE SCHEDULE A BID, WOULD BECOME THE LOW BIDDER ON SCHEDULE B IN THE TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $3,948,304.94.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, MOBILE DISTRICT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER AND THE APPLICABLE PROCUREMENT REGULATION HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED TO GREENHUT TO CORRECT ITS BID. THE ACTING CHIEF OF ENGINEERS MADE A SIMILAR RECOMMENDATION BY RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROTEST OF ALGERNON BLAIR, INCORPORATED, AGAINST CORRECTION OF A MISTAKE IN BID ALLEGED BY GREENHUT BE DENIED.

ALGERNON BLAIR, INCORPORATED, THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER ON SCHEDULE B, PROTESTS ANY CORRECTION OF THE GREENHUT BID ON SCHEDULE B ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE POLICY OF STRICT MAINTENANCE OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES AS SET FORTH IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE SUCH AS 17 COMP. GEN. 554, 37 ID. 210, B-128175, DATED JANUARY 19, 1956, AND THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (PAR. 2-406.3 (A) (3) ).

PARAGRAPH 2-406.3 (A) (3) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION PROVIDES:

WHERE THE BIDDER REQUESTS PERMISSION TO CORRECT A MISTAKE IN HIS BID AND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF A MISTAKE AND THE BID ACTUALLY INTENDED, A DETERMINATION PERMITTING THE BIDDER TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE MAY BE MADE; PROVIDED THAT, IN THE EVENT SUCH CORRECTION WOULD RESULT IN DISPLACING ONE OR MORE LOWER BIDS, THE DETERMINATION SHALL NOT BE MADE UNLESS THE EXISTENCE OF THE MISTAKE AND THE BID ACTUALLY INTENDED ARE ASCERTAINABLE SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE INVITATION AND THE BID ITSELF. IF THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING ONLY AS TO THE MISTAKE, BUT NOT AS TO THE INTENDED BID, A DETERMINATION PERMITTING THE BIDDER TO WITHDRAW HIS BID MAY BE MADE.

THE QUESTION WHETHER A BIDDER MAY BE PERMITTED TO CHANGE HIS BID AFTER THE BIDS ARE OPENED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR ALWAYS PRESENTS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN. A POSSIBILITY OF FRAUD OR COLLUSION, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BID SYSTEM, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OTHER BIDDERS MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. CASES WHERE A DOWNWARD CORRECTION WOULD DISPLACE ONE OR MORE OTHER BIDS, WE HAVE PERMITTED CORRECTION ONLY WHEN THE BID DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES SHOWED THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR AND WHAT THE BID WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEPT FOR THE ERROR.

BLAIR URGES THAT THE SCHEDULE A BID AND THE SCHEDULE B BID ARE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIDS AND THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE TWO SUCH SEPARATE BIDS FROM THE SAME BIDDER AND BY COMPARISON CONCLUDE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE IN ONE OF THEM. IT IS FURTHER URGED THAT DUE TO CONTRACTORS' FREQUENT PRACTICE OF UNBALANCING THEIR BIDS, OR LOADING A PARTICULAR ALTERNATE BID, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MISTAKE EXISTS IN SCHEDULE A OR IN SCHEDULE B, UNLESS IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE SCHEDULE A BID WAS CALCULATED FIRST AND A CORRECT FIGURE REACHED AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6 OF THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE (BELOW ITEM 80) AND THAT THIS FIGURE WAS ERRONEOUSLY CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6 TO THE TOP OF PAGE 7 AND INSERTED FOR ITEM 81. IT IS STATED, HOWEVER, THAT IT CAN BE EQUALLY AS WELL ASSUMED THAT SCHEDULE B WAS CALCULATED FIRST; THAT THE PRICE SHOWN FOR ITEM 81 AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7 IS CORRECT; AND THAT THIS FIGURE WAS ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS COMMON PRACTICE IN MANY INSTANCES FOR BIDDERS TO CALCULATE A MAXIMUM BID FOR ALL POSSIBLE WORK IN A JOB, INCLUDING ALL ALTERNATES, AND TO ADJUST DOWNWARD FROM THIS TOTAL BY STRIPPING OUT VARIOUS ALTERNATES SO AS TO REACH A TOTAL FOR EACH LOWER ALTERNATE BID.

WE AGREE THAT THE SCHEDULE A AND THE SCHEDULE B BIDS TECHNICALLY ARE TWO SEPARATE BIDS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT AGREE THAT BOTH BIDS (ALTERNATES) MAY NOT BE LOOKED AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MISTAKE IN ONE OF THEM. THE TWO BIDS (ALTERNATES) ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME INVITATION AND THE BIDDER HAS NO CHOICE AS TO WHICH ALTERNATE MIGHT BE ACCEPTED. OBVIOUSLY, IF THE ONLY BID IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BEEN SCHEDULE B, THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBLE WAY OF DETERMINING FROM THE BID ITSELF THAT AN ERROR WAS IN FACT MADE IN ITEM 81. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION MUST BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS EXISTING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND NOT WHAT THEY MIGHT BE UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

HERE SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B COVER SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WORK. THE DIFFERENCES ARE ADDITIVE ALTERNATES NO. 6 AND 8 (WHICH ARE FOR SOME $45,000 WORTH OF WORK OF A TYPE ALREADY INCLUDED AS OTHER ITEMS UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES), AND ADDITIVE ALTERNATE NO. 9 FOR THREE 20-TON CRANES (ESTIMATED WORTH ABOUT $113,000). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ITEM 155 ON SCHEDULE B (WHICH IS IDENTICAL WITH ADDITIVE ALTERNATE NO. 4 ON SCHEDULE A) ALSO COVERS THREE CRANES, TWO OF 20 TONS AND ONE OF 10 TONS, FOR WHICH THE ESTIMATE WAS $106,000. ALL CRANES WOULD PROBABLY BE SUBCONTRACTED, AND GREENHUT QUOTED THE SAME PRICE FOR THE TWO 20-TON AND ONE 10-TON CRANES ON BOTH SCHEDULES. HIS PRICE FOR THESE ($98,000) WAS IN ABOUT THE SAME RATIO TO HIS PRICE ($106,000) FOR THE THREE 20 TON CRANES AS THE RATIO BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES FOR THE TWO LOTS OF CRANES. GREENHUT ALSO QUOTED IDENTICAL UNIT PRICES AND IDENTICAL LUMP-SUM PRICES IN ALL INSTANCES FOR COMPARABLE WORK UNDER BOTH SCHEDULES, EXCEPT FOR ITEM 1 AND ITEM 81.

IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE BIDS AS MADE ON SCHEDULES A AND B BY GREENHUT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE JOB WAS ESTIMATED FIRST ON SCHEDULE B, WITH THE INTENTION TO ARRIVE AT THE SCHEDULE A BID BY "STRIPPING OUT" ITEMS FROM SCHEDULE B. THE STRIPPING OUT METHOD OF ARRIVING AT A BID FOR LESS THAN THE COMPLETE JOB SEEMS TO BE MORE ADAPTABLE TO A SITUATION WHERE QUOTATIONS ARE MADE ON A LUMP SUM BASIS FOR BOTH THE COMPLETE JOB AND FOR THE SMALLER JOB, WITHOUT UNIT PRICE QUOTATIONS FOR THE PARTICULAR ITEMS TO BE STRIPPED IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAD GREENHUT'S PRICE FOR ITEM 1 BEEN ARRIVED AT, AS SUGGESTED BY BLAIR, BY DEDUCTING FROM $3,781,871.10 THE SUBTOTAL OF THE UNIT PRICE ITEMS 82 THROUGH 158, THE TOTAL OF THE ITEMS IN SCHEDULE A WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN $3,781,871.10, BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEVERAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEM QUOTATIONS UNDER THE TWO SCHEDULES. TO ASSUME THAT GREENHUT ALSO ADJUSTED ALL THESE DIFFERENCES BEFORE MAKING THE DEDUCTION WOULD SEEM TO COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT HE DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY INTENDED HIS TOTAL BID ON SCHEDULE A TO BE IN THE SAME AMOUNT AS HIS BID ON ITEM 81, AND THIS, WE FEEL, WOULD BE STRETCHING SPECULATION TO AN UNREASONABLE DEGREE.

A SECOND POSSIBILITY AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE OCCURRED HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, NAMELY, THAT MR. GREENHUT MISUNDERSTOOD THE LANGUAGE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7 (WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ABOVE ITEM 81). THE PRECEDING PAGE AND A HALF OF THE INVITATION CONSISTED OF A SERIES OF CUMULATIVE SUBTOTALS, EACH SUBTOTAL COMING AFTER THE QUOTATION OF A PRICE FOR ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM. THE LANGUAGE AT THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE (PAGE 7) IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THAT ON THE PRECEDING PAGES CALLING FOR SUBTOTALS, AND IT SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT MR. GREENHUT MAY HAVE SO MISREAD IT AS CALLING FOR THE PRECEDING CUMULATIVE TOTAL. WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT EITHER THE FIGURE FOR ITEM 81 WAS COPIED FROM THE FIGURE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6, OR THE FIGURE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6 WAS COPIED FROM THAT FOR ITEM 81. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE WE CAN SEE NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE LATTER WAS THE CASE AND THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT IT IS CLEAR BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE FIGURE INSERTED FOR ITEM 81 WAS COPIED FROM THE LAST PRECEDING TOTAL. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT BIDDERS HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER AWARD WOULD BE MADE ON SCHEDULE A OR SCHEDULE B, AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT THE GREENHUT BID QUOTED REALISTIC PRICES FOR THE ITEMS IN SCHEDULE B WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE A, WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT MR. GREENHUT DELIBERATELY QUOTED $891,000 MORE FOR THE SAME BUILDING IN SCHEDULE B THAN IN SCHEDULE A. AND EVEN IF HE HAD INTENDED TO QUOTE A HIGHER PRICE FOR THE SAME BUILDING UNDER SCHEDULE B, IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT HE WOULD INCREASE THE SCHEDULE B PRICE FOR THE BUILDING BY AN AMOUNT EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE COST OF ALL OTHER WORK UNDER SCHEDULE A, INCLUDING THE ADDITIVE ALTERNATES.

UNDER EITHER ASSUMPTION AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE OCCURRED, THAT IS, WHETHER BECAUSE OF A MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE LANGUAGE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7 CALLED FOR A SUBTOTAL OF THE PRECEDING ITEMS, OR BECAUSE OF AN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT $3,781,871.10 WAS WHAT HAD BEEN QUOTED FOR ITEM 1, THE FACT THAT THAT FIGURE WAS CARRIED OVER WITHOUT CHANGE LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT MR. GREENHUT'S INTENTION WAS TO QUOTE THE SAME PRICE IN BOTH SCHEDULES FOR THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY BUILDING.

ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE BELIEVE THE BID DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE BY THE GREENHUT COMPANY ON ITEM 81 OF SCHEDULE B, AND THAT ITS INTENDED PRICE FOR THAT ITEM WAS THE SAME AS THAT QUOTED FOR THE IDENTICAL BUILDING UNDER SCHEDULE A. THE PROTEST OF ALGERNON BLAIR, INCORPORATED, IS THEREFORE DENIED, AND YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE PRICE QUOTED FOR ITEM 81 OF THE BID OF THE GREENHUT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO READ $2,890,000, THE SAME PRICE QUOTED FOR ITEM I OF ITS BID ON SCHEDULE A, AND THE BID CONSIDERED ON THAT BASIS.

THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS ARE RETURNED. THE OTHER PAPERS SUBMITTED ARE BEING RETAINED FOR OUR FILES.

GAO Contacts