DENIED: December 15, 2011 
CBCA 2335 
JANSSEN CONTRACTING, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Gerard H. Rock, President of Janssen Contracting, Inc., Anchorage, AK, appearing 
for Appellant. 
F. Christopher Bockmon, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, 
Anchorage, AK, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges GOODMAN and STEEL . 
STEEL , Board Judge. 
This appeal is from a contracting officer’s decision denying appellant’s claim for 
reformation of the contract due to a mistake in bid. Appellant, Janssen Contracting, Inc. 
(Janssen), elected to proceed under the accelerated procedure pursuant to 41 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7106(a) (West Supp. 2011) and Board Rule 53 (48 CFR 6101.53 (2010)). This procedure 
permits issuance of a decision by two judges rather than three, and requires that a decision 
be issued, whenever possible, within 180 days from the date the contractor elects to use the 
procedure. 

 
  
              
             
             
               
               
   
              
                
           
               
               
          
                 
               
                 
       
          
           
             
          
               
 
              
       
          
    
         
        
 
       
     
2 CBCA 2335 
Findings of Fact 
On April 19, 2010, Janssen was determined to be the low bidder and was awarded 
a contract by the National Park Service (NPS) to construct the Teklanika rest stop 
replacement in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Janssen’s bid was in the amount 
of $1,340,890. The next lowest bid was $1,404,200 -- $63,310 or 4.7% more than Janssen’s 
bid. Janssen’s base bid incorporated a bid for some portion of the work from its 
subcontractor, Star Electric (Star), in the amount of $47,170. Janssen has reported that the 
next lowest subcontractor bid it received for this work was $170,500. Despite this large 
discrepancy, it elected to utilize Star’s numbers in preparing its bid to the NPS. As appellant 
acknowledges, the Government had no reason to know of this discrepancy. 
On August 4, 2010, as it commenced work, Star told Janssen that it had made a 
mistake on its bid to Janssen; it had not included the $88,650 bid from its own 
subcontractor, ABS Alaskan, Inc. (ABS), to perform the solar panels/photovoltaic portion 
of Star’s work.  After negotiating down ABS’s price to $67,870, Star threatened to default 
if Janssen did not help pay some of the remaining expense. In the interest of completing the 
contract, Janssen agreed to split with Star the $67,870 so that work could be completed. 
Janssen asserts that as soon as it was aware of the mistake, it told the Government of the 
problem.  However, its request for additional compensation in the amount of $30,000 was 
submitted only after appellant received from respondent a letter acknowledging substantial 
completion of the entire project. The contracting officer denied Janssen’s claim. 
Janssen is now seeking from the Board an increase in contract payments in the 
amount of $30,000. Appellant cites Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 14.407-4, 
48 CFR 14.407-4, Mistakes after Award, in support of its request. That section states, inter 
alia, 
If a contractor’s discovery and request for correction of a mistake in bid is not 
discovered until after award, . . . 
(b) . . . agencies are authorized to make a determination-­
(1) To rescind a contract; 
(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. 

 
        
           
              
             
         
     
            
               
               
                 
              
            
              
              
              
                 
            
       
                 
              
             
                
                
            
                
       
3 CBCA 2335 
(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 . . . if unilaterally made by the contractor, so 
apparent as to have charged the contracting officer with notice 
of the probability of the mistake. 
Discussion 
As enunciated in FAR 14.407-4, a contractor may obtain a remedy from the 
Government for a unilateral mistake in bid after the contract has been awarded only if the 
contracting officer knew or should have known of the contractor’s mistake at the time the bid 
was accepted. Aydin Corp. v. United States , 669 F.2d 681 (Ct. Cl. 1982) . No contractor can 
recover from a mistake in judgment, but if the contracting officer knew or should have 
known of a clerical or arithmetical error (which under some circumstances might even 
include complete omission of a cost item from a bid calculation) the error might be 
compensable. Bromley Contracting Co. v. United States , 794 F.2d 669, 672 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 
Thus, a contractor must prove two elements to recover for a unilateral bid mistake raised 
after contract award. The contractor must prove that the error is of the type that may be 
compensable, and that the contracting officer knew or should have known of the mistake at 
the time the bid was accepted. Id. 
In this case, appellant fails to prove both elements. First, the error is not of the type 
that may be compensable because the error in question was that of the subcontractor, not 
appellant. Second, appellant concedes that the Government had no reason to suspect that 
there was a mistake in Janssen’s bid. This is particularly true since there was only 4.7% 
separating the bid of the two lowest bidders. Since at issue was the subcontractor’s error, and 
the contracting officer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the unilateral 
mistake at the time of bid, appellant is not entitled to reformation of the contract based on 
unilateral mistake on the part of the contractor. 

 
              
                 
  
_________________________________ 
  
 
 
                                            
  
 
 
4 CBCA 2335 
Decision 
Appellant has failed to prove that the error in question was compensable or that the 
contracting officer knew or should have known of the error at the time of bid. Therefore, the 
appeal is DENIED . 
CANDIDA S. STEEL 
Board Judge 
I concur: 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge