The Hackney Group

B-261241 Sep 05, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bidders are responsible for the timely delivery of their bids and amendments. Was material and bidders were required to acknowledge it prior to bid opening. Should have rendered its bid responsive. Hackney argues that the amendment was not material and that the agency should have waived the failure to acknowledge. The solicitation package contained three asbestos drawings (numbered AB-1 through AB-3 and labeled "Hazardous Material Abatement - Partial Roof Plan") which identified the specific portions of the roof from which asbestos would have to be removed. Each asbestos drawing stated that it was drawn to a scale under which one-sixteenth of an inch represented 1 foot. The architectural drawings similarly stated that they were drawn to a scale under which one- sixteenth of an inch represented 1 foot. View Decision Matter of: The Hackney Group File: B-261241 Date: September 5, 1995 Bidders are responsible for the timely delivery of their bids and amendments, and late delivery generally requires the bid's rejection. Where solicitation contained drawings which reflected differing amounts of work to be performed, an amendment which eliminated the inconsistency and, thereby, clearly obligated the winning bidder to perform all required work at the contract price, was material and bidders were required to acknowledge it prior to bid opening. Attorneys DECISION The Hackney Group protests the rejection of its bid for failure to acknowledge amendment No. 0005 to invitation for bids (IFB) No. MDA946-95-BA007, issued by the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, for roof replacement at Federal Building No. 2 (the "Navy Annex") in Arlington, Virginia. [1] Hackney asserts that its facsimile acknowledgment, sent prior to bid opening, or its mailed acknowledgment, received after bid opening, should have rendered its bid responsive; alternatively, Hackney argues that the amendment was not material and that the agency should have waived the failure to acknowledge. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued this solicitation on February 21, 1995, seeking firm, fixed-price bids for the removal and replacement of the Navy Annex's existing roof. As part of the work, the solicitation required removal of existing asbestos. The solicitation package contained three asbestos drawings (numbered AB-1 through AB-3 and labeled "Hazardous Material Abatement - Partial Roof Plan") which identified the specific portions of the roof from which asbestos would have to be removed. Each asbestos drawing stated that it was drawn to a scale under which one-sixteenth of an inch represented 1 foot; the asbestos drawings did not list actual dimensions in numeric form. The solicitation package also contained architectural drawings (numbered A-1 through A-7) to be used in connection with the other demolition and replacement tasks. The architectural drawings similarly stated that they were drawn to a scale under which one- sixteenth of an inch represented 1 foot; in addition, the architectural drawings provided numeric dimensions for the perimeter of each wing of the Navy Annex. Finally, the solicitation package contained an overall site plan (numbered SP-1), which was drawn to a smaller scale than either the asbestos drawings or the architectural drawings; [2] this drawing also contained numeric dimensions for the perimeter of the building. As part of the solicitation requirements, offerors were advised that the asbestos removal work would have to be performed by a certified asbestos removal company; thus, prime contractors who were not so qualified were required to obtain subcontractor bids for the asbestos removal work. On March 15, a potential bidder advised the agency that various asbestos subcontractors were providing it with differing quotations based on differing square footage amounts of asbestos removal work to be performed. The bidder noted that calculation of the asbestos removal area from the asbestos drawings resulted in a smaller area than calculation of the same area from either the architectural drawings or the site plan. Upon reviewing the drawings, the agency determined that the asbestos drawings were inaccurate. Specifically, the contracting officer concluded that application of the scale provided on the asbestos drawings resulted in an understatement of the asbestos removal work by between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet. The contracting officer further determined that the scale and dimensions contained in the architectural drawings and the site plan drawing accurately reflected the actual dimensions. Accordingly, on March 31, the agency issued amendment No. 0005 which stated: "All contractors shall note that the HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT - PARTIAL ROOF PLAN drawings AB-1, AB-2, and AB-3 are published at a slightly smaller scale than the 1/16" = 1'0" indication noted on the plans.