Proposal Contained an Absurd, $2.5 Billion Pricing Error. Should the Agency Have Sought Clarification?

Identifying pricing discrepancies, the agency adjusted the protester’s price. The adjustment resulted in a price exponentially higher than other offerors. The protester said the discrepancy was due to European numbering convention—i.e., using a comma instead of a decimal point. The protester argued the adjusted price was so absurd, the agency should have sought clarifications. But GAO sided with the agency. 

Castellano Cobra UTWE- MACC LWY 18-1982, GAO B-421146.2 

• Pricing Discrepancy – The protester submitted a proposal for construction services at a Navy base in Spain. The agency found pricing discrepancies in the protester’s proposal. The total price of each CLIN conflicted with the listed unit prices. The agency adjusted the protester’s price, which resulted in a total price of $2.5 billion. The agency awarded the contract to another offeror who proposed an $81 million price. 
• European Numbering Conventions – The protester challenged the price adjustment. The protester was a Spanish company. The protester argued the pricing discrepancy in its proposal was due to the European convention of using a comma instead of a decimal point. Thus, for example, the protester read 5,588 units as 5.588 units. The agency, however, read it as five thousand units and adjusted it based on that number. This resulted in a $2.5 billion price. The protester argued that its price was so absurd that the agency should have sought clarification. 
• Agency Reasonably Evaluated – GAO denied the protest. The solicitation specifically warned offerors that English language meaning controlled. Thus, the agency was not obligated to consider European numbering conventions in resolving the price discrepancy. Rather, the protester had the responsibility to submit a well-written proposal. The agency had broad discretion in seeking clarifications. It was not obligated to seek clarification in this case. 

The protester is represented by Robert J. Symon, Patrick R. Quigley, Owen E. Slayers, and Nathaniel J. Greeson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The awardee is represented by Hillary J. Freund, Gregory H. Koger, and Stephen Shapiro of Holland Knight LLP. The agency is represented by Chad L. Diedrich of the Navy. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor 

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/GAO-Castellano.pdf” title=”GAO – Castellano”]