DENIED: January 13, 2012 
CBCA 1981 
SINGLETON ENTERPRISES, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
Respondent. 
Wayne Singleton, Owner of Singleton Enterprises, Luthersville, GA, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Marilyn J. Brown, Office of General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Little 
Rock, AK, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK , and DRUMMOND . 
BORWICK , Board Judge. 
Appellant, Singleton Enterprises, appeals from the decision of a contracting officer 
of the Department of Agriculture, through the National Resource Conservation Service 
(NRCS), denying appellant’s request for correction of a bid mistake after award. For the 
reasons below, we sustain the decision of the contracting officer and deny the appeal. 
Findings of Fact 
Solicitation provisions 

 
           
           
             
          
          
          
             
                
                  
        
             
              
            
             
              
                
              
               
       
              
             
              
                
              
           
               
  
             
               
              
               
         
2 CBCA 1981 
On February 6, 2009, respondent issued a solicitation for the Hanson Marsh 
Hydrologic Restoration (Hanson Marsh) project. The Hanson Marsh is located in 
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, at the intersection of Shell Road and U.S. Highway 90, and 
approximately 720 feet north of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 
The solicitation contained five bid items: (1) construction surveys; (2) mobilization 
and demobilization; (3) excavation, marsh creation, and dredging, with an estimated 
50,000 cubic yards of fill needed to complete the project; (4) earthfill, containment dike 
and open marsh area, with an estimated 5646 linear feet of dike to be created; and (5) 
staff gauge units. One award was to be made from an aggregate of all bid items; thus, the 
solicitation required bidders to complete all items. 
Bid items one and two are self-explanatory. For bid item three, the solicitation 
explained that the contractor was to excavate dredge material and place the material in the 
marsh creation area to the lines and grades depicted on attached construction drawings. 
The solicitation required, among other items, use of a hydraulic dredge not exceeding a 
diameter of twelve inches, with the dredge material to be taken from a designated borrow 
area shown on the drawings. The contractor was to have on site the required length of 
dredge discharge pipe to reach from the farthest point within the borrow area to the 
farthest point in the marsh creation placement area. The estimated length of the pipe was 
between 4500 and 5000 linear feet. 
Bid item four consisted of all work necessary to place and shape earth fill needed 
to complete earthen containment dikes to be placed along the perimeter of the marsh 
creation areas as shown on the drawings. All material for the earthen containment dikes 
was to be taken from the marsh creation area shown on the drawings. Bid item five 
required the contractor to provide and install staff gauge units in the marsh creation area 
for determining the fill elevation of the dredge fill material. 
The project work was limited to ten hours per day, six days per week. 
The Government’s estimate 
Respondent’s engineer estimated a lump sum $5000 for bid item one; a lump sum 
of $50,000 for bid item two; $250,000 for bid item three, based upon 50,000 cubic yards 
of dredging material at $5 per cubic yard; $141,150 for bid item four, based upon 
constructing 5646 linear feet of containment dike at $25 per linear foot; and $6250 for bid 
item five, based upon twenty-five staff gauges at $250 each. 

 
      
          
              
             
              
             
            
           
   
           
             
           
           
             
             
              
                
               
             
              
          
              
    
           
            
               
                
              
              
               
  
             
               
 
3 CBCA 1981 
The process of developing the Government’s estimate 1 
The Government started its estimating efforts by developing a preliminary estimate 
dated January 24, 2008, for the Hanson Marsh project. The dredging estimate is of 
primary importance in this matter. The preliminary dredging estimate for the project was 
$4 per cubic yard of fill. Respondent’s civil engineer, Mr. Loland Broussard, who was 
responsible for the preliminary estimate, testified at the hearing that he used a template 
(called project priority list seventeen or PPL-17) for typical construction costs of Coastal 
Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) projects. 
2 The template is 
updated annually. 
The template was developed by an engineering work group of agency officials 
responsible for administering the CWPPRA. As of February to May 2007, the estimated 
dredging cost for the PPL was $3.75 per cubic yard. 
Mr. Broussard testified that the $3.75 per cubic yard preliminary estimate was 
based upon a combination of large and small CWPPRA dredging project estimates. He 
adjusted the preliminary estimate to $4 per cubic yard, taking into account the specific 
variables of the Hanson Marsh project. The Hanson Marsh project was then estimated to 
need 72,000 cubic yards of fill to complete the project. The two variables that caused the 
$.25 upward adjustment, rather than a greater figure, were the low volume of the fill in 
the Hanson March project as compared to larger projects and the short distance between 
the borrow area and the marsh creation site as compared to other projects. 
In furtherance of his preliminary estimate, Mr. Broussard tested that estimate 
against the low bid of a similarly sized project, called the Portage project, which was 
1 The parties filed cross-motions for summary relief in this matter, but were in sharp 
disagreement concerning a material fact, the reasonableness of the Government’s estimate. 
Cross-motions for summary relief are denied when there are disputed material facts present 
in each motion. Cf. Serco, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp ., CBCA 1695, 11-1 BCA 
¶ 34,662. We reserved ruling on the parties’ motions in order to take testimony on the 
reasonableness of that estimate. Given the presence of disputed material facts, we deny the 
cross-motions. We use the evidence in the record, including the appeal file and supplemental 
appeal file submitted by appellant, as well as the hearing transcript, as the basis for our 
findings. 
2 Mr. Broussard has estimated over one dozen CWPPRA projects and has served full-
time since 1994 at the engineering work group as a project manager and planning engineer. 

 
                 
              
               
            
              
                
              
              
              
             
             
                
               
              
             
       
          
               
             
              
               
             
                
              
             
          
            
            
    
           
             
              
               
              
             
             
4 CBCA 1981 
completed in 2003. The low bid on that project was $7.50 per cubic yard. He reduced 
that figure by $3.50 for a variety of reasons. First, the Portage project contract combined 
into the dredging line items bid items that were separately broken out into items four and 
five in the Hanson Marsh project solicitation. Second, although the Hanson Marsh 
project was a similar size to the Portage project, the Portage project required a different 
type of dike construction and the project lay near a high pressure gas line. Mr. Broussard 
factored in what he assumed to be extra dredging costs of the Portage project associated 
with dredging near a hazardous utility line. Third, the pumping distance for the Portage 
project was 11,000 feet, while the pumping distance for the Hanson Marsh was less than 
half that, which might also reduce the dredging cost if a contractor included pumping 
expenses in a per cubic yard dredging cost. In developing his preliminary dredging 
estimate of $4 per cubic yard, Mr. Broussard did not take into account any increase in unit 
cost based upon a limitation of dredging hours to ten hours per day; his estimate was 
based upon dredging twenty-four hours per day. He stated that all conditions of two 
projects being equal, a limitation on dredging hours for one project might increase the 
unit dredging costs for that project. 
After Mr. Broussard prepared his preliminary estimate, that estimate was provided 
to the design engineers for the project, Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Slocum, to produce a final 
estimate for the solicitation. The design engineers used Mr. Broussard’s $4 per cubic 
yard dredging estimate as a starting point, but they conducted their own analysis. The 
first step in their analysis was an on-site survey of the work area, using global positioning 
system devices and computer-aided design software to estimate the size of the work area 
and the amount of fill necessary to both build the containment dikes and to fill in the 
marsh area. The engineers estimated 50,000 cubic yards of fill would be needed, which 
was a reduction from Mr. Broussard’s preliminary estimate of 72,000 cubic yards. 
The design engineers examined the Portage project and compared the Portage 
project to the Hanson Marsh project. The design engineers considered the same 
differences between the Hanson Marsh project and the Portage project as those identified 
by Mr. Broussard. 
In addition, the design engineers considered other cost factors that would increase 
the Portage project’s dredging unit cost per cubic yard over the Hanson Marsh project. 
Those factors were the requirement that the dredging pipe for the Portage project had to 
cross a lake using floats, while that was not the case with the Hanson Marsh property. 
Also the length of the Portage project dredging pipe required use of a booster pump, 
which was not necessary for the Hanson Marsh project. The design engineers also 
considered that the Portage project was six years older than the Hanson Marsh project. 

 
            
            
          
              
              
              
               
             
  
       
            
             
               
           
             
              
             
               
           
            
           
         
             
              
             
               
            
              
            
           
                
      
       
5 CBCA 1981 
Considering those factors, the design engineers deducted $2.50 per cubic yard to estimate 
a $5 per cubic yard for dredging the Hanson Marsh project. 
The design engineers examined the estimated production rate for the Hanson 
Marsh project of 1800 cubic yards of dredge fill material per day in determining the 
performance time of the project. The daily production rate did not figure prominently in 
Mr. Slocum’s unit price calculations; rather, he used it to calculate the estimated time of 
performance. Mr. Slocum saw little effect of the unit production rate on unit costs, save 
for a slight increase in a contractor’s equipment costs if the performance time were 
extended. 
The bids as compared to the Government’s estimate 
The Government total estimate for the project was $452,400, and, as noted above, 
the Government estimated excavation and marsh creation to take 50,000 cubic yards at $5 
per cubic yard or a total of $250,000 for that line item. The Government estimated 
$50,000 for mobilization and demobilization. Appellant’s total bid was $486,200, with 
appellant bidding the excavation and marsh creation line item at $280,000, or $5.60 per 
cubic yard for the estimated 50,000 cubic yards of fill required. Appellant bid $63,350 
for mobilization and demobilization. The next lowest bid was $788,962, with the firm 
bidding the excavation and marsh creation line item at $400,000 or $8 per cubic yard for 
the estimated 50,000 cubic yards and $235,000 for the mobilization and demobilization 
line item. The other bids were $979,164.12 and $3,063,828.20. 
On March 10, 2009, the bids were opened, without bidders being present. 
Respondent’s contract specialist determined that other than the mobilization and 
demobilization line items, there was no significant variation in the low and second lowest 
bids for the other line items as against the Government’s estimate or in relationship to 
each other. She thought the variation in the mobilization and demobilization bids could 
be attributed to the variables between different types of equipment to be used and to the 
distances from which the equipment was to be mobilized. The contract specialist 
determined that there was no need for bid verification before award because the face of 
the bids did not show evidence of a mistake in bids. 
The contract specialist notified appellant of its apparent low bid status on 
March 16, 2009, and the contract was awarded to the appellant on April 9, 2009, for a 
lump sum price of $486,200. 
Contract performance and notification of mistake in bid 

 
              
             
             
            
             
   
          
           
          
              
                
 
  
         
             
           
       
            
            
                 
            
             
             
            
             
                
               
              
            
           
           
               
            
             
             
             
              
6 CBCA 1981 
Respondent issued its notice to proceed on June 22, 2009. The contract required 
appellant to commence work within twenty calendar days after receipt of the notice to 
proceed, with work to be completed within 211 calendar days. The contract required 
appellant to construct containment dikes to specifications, then to let the land surrounded 
by the containment dikes settle before commencing with placement of fill in the marsh 
restoration area. 
Appellant hired Tri-Native Contractors as subcontractors to perform the work on-
site. Appellant had not obtained subcontractor quotes from Tri-Native when bidding. 
Appellant’s bid was based upon quotes from another dredging firm--Kenny Sloan--which 
appellant did not use to perform the work. According to appellant’s owner, he obtained 
the quotes when Kenny Sloan was dredging in the Turks and Caicos Island, as well as in 
South Florida. 
Appellant terminated Tri-Native’s contract for non-performance at the end of 
November 2009. One or two days after appellant terminated Tri-Native, on December 2, 
2009, almost seven months after contract award, appellant notified the contracting officer 
of the alleged mistake in bid. 
In its notification of mistake-in-bid, appellant stated that in developing the bid for 
line item 3--excavation, marsh creation, and dredging--it calculated a daily cost of $8748 
per day for the dredging line item. Using a production rate of 105 cubic yards per hour 
and applying that figure to the estimated quantity of 50,000 cubic yards, appellant 
calculated that it would take 477 hours to complete the dredging required by the 
solicitation and resulting contract. Dividing that figure by the ten hour workday allowed 
under the contract resulted in forty-eight days calculated to perform the dredging line 
item. Further dividing the estimated 50,000 cubic yards of fill by forty-eight days 
resulted in a production rate of 1042 cubic yards per day, or a unit price of $8.14 
(dividing the daily cost of $8478 by 1042). Appellant then explained that its actual bid 
should have been $545,000 for line item three, increasing its bid to $751,200, instead of 
the $486,200 bid that was the basis for the contract award. 
These calculations were presented to the contracting officer in a fourteen page 
submission. In that submission, appellant attached six pages of hand-written, undated 
notes purporting to be the costs upon which appellant based its bid. The only independent 
verification of subcontractor costs contained in the submission was an invoice from the 
contemplated staff gauge supplier, C.C. Lynch & Associates. Appellant did not submit to 
the contracting officer documentation or other evidence from Kenny Sloan as to its quote 
to appellant for line item three, the dredging and excavation work that comprised the 
principal task under the contract. Appellant did attach a paper accounting sheet with the 

 
           
             
            
           
    
        
            
             
            
          
          
             
         
          
             
                 
               
            
              
              
            
              
           
               
          
             
               
               
             
               
         
               
     
           
             
7 CBCA 1981 
notation “BOD 3-10-09.” In its notification, appellant’s owner certified that the 
calculations were the original of appellant’s bid estimate. The record of this appeal, 
moreover, contains no independent information from Kenny Sloan as to its quote to 
appellant for the dredging work on the Hanson Marsh project.
3 
Decision of the contracting officer 
The contracting officer reviewed appellant’s claim under the procedures 
established by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 14.407-4. As to line item 
three, she concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of a mistake 
because she could not substantiate the claimed amount with the subcontractor from which 
appellant obtained the information because appellant did not provide the contracting 
officer with the subcontractor’s address or telephone numbers. Consequently, she 
concluded that “the Government can not satisfy itself as to the validity of these 
contractors or the information received without substantiating evidence.” 
The contracting officer noted that documentation was lacking to substantiate costs 
relative to labor, overhead, and profit to determine what costs were utilized in the 
preparation of the bid. She noted that the only item for which a bid estimate was received 
was from C.C. Lynch & Associates for the staff gauges. She could not accept appellant’s 
statement of equipment costs in the bid, because in its equipment submittals appellant 
indicated that all of its equipment was owned, but the equipment costs in appellant’s cost 
estimating worksheets submitted in support of its corrected bid did not correlate to use of 
appellant’s own equipment. There were no job estimation sheets provided by contractors 
to verify equipment pricing in its corrected bid, if appellant was to subcontract use of 
equipment, or any depreciation schedules, equipment repair costs, or other data to 
substantiate the true cost of appellant’s use of its own equipment in the corrected bid. 
3 Appellant’s representative stated at the hearing that he subcontracted the dredging 
work to Tri-Native for $2.69 per cubic yard. Adding appellant’s standard mark-up, profit, 
and bond to that price, appellant’s fully loaded price to the Government for line item three 
would have been $3.60 per cubic yard. Since appellant had bid $5.60 per cubic yard, 
appellant’s additional profit on that item over and above his fully-loaded bid would have 
been $2 per cubic yard or $100,000 for dredging 50,000 cubic yards of fill had appellant’s 
subcontractor successfully performed the contract. Before respondent terminated the contract 
for default, Tri-Native had performed the majority of the work on the contract; the only work 
appellant performed was installation of the staff gauges. Another subcontractor performed 
construction surveys. Appellant’s owner and representative never visited the site for 
preparation of the bid, or, for that matter, during Tri-Native’s performance of the contract. 

 
          
                
          
             
           
           
          
            
             
            
          
           
             
               
          
    
  
             
             
    
             
          
         
    
            
         
    
8 CBCA 1981 
The contracting officer compared the Government’s estimate with the two lowest 
bids. She did not use higher bids of the two contractors who were well over the estimate. 
The contracting officer also found no significant disparity between the Government’s 
estimate and the two lowest line item bids, save for the mobilization and de-mobilization 
line item. As to line item three, she stated: 
When reviewing the unit pricing for the excavation, there didn’t appear to 
be an apparent disparity between the government estimate and the low 
bidder and only a slight difference in unit pricing between the low bidder 
[appellant at $5.60 per cubic yard] and the second low bidder [at $8 per 
cubic yard]. In my opinion, these were realistic based on excavation the 
NRCS had seen on other contracts for this type of work. 
She did not consider the bid disparity between the mobilization and de­
mobilization line items significant because of the differences in the types of equipment to 
be used and the distances from where the equipment would be brought. For the above 
reasons, the contracting officer denied correction of the bid. 
Discussion 
FAR 14.407-4 provides: 
Mistakes after award. 
If a contractor’s discovery and request for correction of a mistake in bid is 
not made until after the award, it shall be processed under the procedures of 
Subpart 33.2 and the following: 
(a) When a mistake in a contractor’s bid is not discovered until after award, 
the mistake may be corrected by contract modification if correcting the 
mistake would be favorable to the Government without changing the 
essential requirements of the specifications. 
(b) In addition to the cases contemplated in paragraph (a) above or as 
otherwise authorized by law, agencies are authorized to make a 
determination-­
. . . . 

 
            
           
         
       
           
        
    
          
              
                
           
         
    
           
        
       
        
         
         
         
          
         
 
     
              
          
               
              
              
               
            
             
9 CBCA 1981 
(2) To reform a contract (i) to delete the items involved in the 
mistake or (ii) to increase the price if the contract price, as 
corrected, does not exceed that of the next lowest acceptable 
bid under the original invitation for bids; or 
(3) That no change shall be made in the contract as awarded, 
if the evidence does not warrant a determination under 
subparagraphs (1) or (2) above. 
(c) Determinations under subparagraphs (b)(1) and (2) above may be made 
only on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that a mistake in bid was 
made. In addition, it must be clear that the mistake was (1) mutual, or (2) if 
unilaterally made by the contractor, so apparent as to have charged the 
contracting officer with notice of the probability of the mistake. 
. . . . 
(e) Mistakes alleged or disclosed after award shall be processed as follows: 
(1) The contracting officer shall request the contractor to 
support the alleged mistake by submission of written 
statements and pertinent evidence, such as (i) the contractor’s 
file copy of the bid, (ii) the contractor’s original worksheets 
and other data used in preparing the bid, (iii) subcontractors’ 
and suppliers’ quotations, if any, (iv) published price lists, and 
(v) any other evidence that will serve to establish the mistake, 
the manner in which the mistake occurred, and the bid 
actually intended. 
48 CFR 14.407-4 (2009). 
When, as is the case here, a contractor seeks reformation of its contract for a 
unilateral mistake-in-bid, the contractor must establish by clear and convincing evidence 
each of the following elements: (1) a mistake in fact occurred prior to the contract award; 
(2) the mistake was a clear-cut clerical or mathematic error or a misreading of the 
specifications and not a judgment error; (3) prior to the award, the Government knew or 
should have known that a mistake had been made; (4) the Government did not request bid 
verification; and (5) proof of the intended bid is established. McClure Electrical 
Constructors, Inc. v. Dalton , 132 F.3d 709, 711 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing with approval 

 
            
           
            
              
             
           
             
            
               
                
              
               
              
          
            
      
             
                
               
            
              
           
           
           
              
                
             
            
               
                
            
           
          
             
           
            
   
10 CBCA 1981 
Solar Foam Insulation , ASBCA 46921, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,901); see also Liebherr Crane 
Corp. v. United States , 810 F.2d 1153, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than a preponderance of the 
evidence. In a case of mutual mistake arising out of the Philippine Islands, Justice 
Brandeis held that proof of mistake must be of the “clearest and most satisfactory 
character,” i.e., a “stringent requirement.” Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. 
Government of the Philippine Islands , 247 U.S. 385, 391 (1918). More recently, the 
General Services Board of Contract Appeals held that “clear and convincing evidence” is 
“evidence sufficient to set the tribunal’s mind at ease. It must engender a feeling of 
believability. It must be complete as to all material points and it may not be conflicting, 
confusing or unreliable.” All American Poly Corp ., GSBCA 7104, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,682, at 
88,187. In that case, the board refused to accept the contractor’s explanation as clear and 
convincing evidence without objective evidence as to what the bid would have been. Id. 
at 88,188; see also Wheeled Coach Industries v. General Services Administration , 
GSBCA 10314, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,245, at 125,741 (1992) (worksheets alone not sufficient 
to qualify as clear and convincing evidence). 
In this matter, appellant argues that it has met the requirements of FAR 14.407-4 
for establishing a mistake in its bid and for reformation. Even if, for the purposes of 
argument, we grant the existence of a mistake (element one) and that the mistake was a 
clear-cut clerical error, an unintended switching of digits from $8.14 to $4.18 (element 
two), appellant did not present to the contracting officer or to the Board clear and 
convincing evidence that the Government should have known of the mistake before 
award (element three) or of its intended bid (element five). 
As to element three, appellant argues that the disparity between the Government’s 
estimate and the third highest bidder should have put the contracting officer on notice of 
the mistake before award. We disagree. Disparity of bids alone is not sufficient to put 
the contracting officer on notice of a pre-award mistake, when the contracting officer in 
analyzing bids relied on a reasonable government estimate. Bromley Contracting Co. v. 
United States , 794 F.2d 669, 672 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aydin Corp. v. United States , 669 F.2d 
681, 687 (Ct. Cl. 1982). Here, appellant’s bid was within about seven per cent of the 
Government’s estimate. Despite appellant’s argument to the contrary, we find that the 
Government’s estimate was reasonable. The estimate was based upon a two-step 
analysis, one by the Government’s multi-agency engineering working group and a 
subsequent analysis by respondent’s design engineers. Both groups took as a basis for 
comparison the lowest bid on a similar-sized project, the Portage project, making 
adjustments to account for the differences between the Portage project and the Hanson 
Marsh project. 

 
           
             
             
              
               
                 
               
                  
             
           
     
             
            
              
           
         
          
    
______________________________ 
  
 
 
    
                                                            
                                                  
11 CBCA 1981 
In her analysis, moreover, the contracting officer went further than simply relying 
on the Government’s estimate. She also analyzed the second-low bid and concluded that 
there was no meaningful disparity between line items in appellant’s bid and the second 
low bid, save for the mobilization and de-mobilization line item. For the essential line 
item three, she found a difference of 30% between appellant’s bid and the second low bid, 
which is not a significant disparity in light of the range of bids. Cf. Wender Presses, Inc. 
v. United States , 343 F.2d 961, 964 (Ct. Cl. 1965) (125% disparity between line item bids 
did not put contracting officer on notice of mistake in light of the range of bids). In light 
of the Government’s estimate and the similarity in bids between appellant’s bid and the 
second low bid, the contracting officer properly concluded that pre-award verification of 
bids was not necessary. 
Appellant did not present to the contracting officer or to the Board clear and 
convincing evidence of what its intended bid would have been absent the mistake, 
particularly as to line item three. Appellant failed to present to the contracting officer 
third-party verification of Kenny Sloan’s bid to appellant. There were inconsistencies 
between appellant’s equipment submittals showing contractor owned equipment and its 
estimating worksheets which were based on equipment owned by others. 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED . 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
___________________________ ________________________________ 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS JEROME M. DRUMMOND 
Board Judge Board Judge