B-G Mechanical Service, Inc.

B-265782 Published: Dec 27, 1995. Publicly Released: Dec 27, 1995. Jump To HIGHLIGHTS FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION Highlights A firm protested the General Services Administration's (GSA) rejection of its bid and subsequent contract award for cooling tower replacement and heating and air conditioning system repair, contending that GSA improperly rejected its bid as nonresponsive. GAO held that GSA properly rejected the protester's bid as nonresponsive, since the protester took exception to the solicitation's specifications which rendered its bid price ambiguous. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: B-G Mechanical Service, Inc. File: B-265782 Date: December 27, 1995 Agency properly rejected bid as nonresponsive where statement included on the protester's bid schedule rendered the bid ambiguous as to price. Attorneys DECISION B-G Mechanical Service, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive and the award of a contract to All State Boiler Work, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. GS-01P-95-BZC-0021, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to replace a cooling tower and to modify the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system at the federal building in New Haven, Connecticut. GSA rejected the bid as nonresponsive because B-G's bid schedule included a statement which the agency concluded was inconsistent with the terms of the IFB. We deny the protest. When it was issued, the IFB sought lump-sum bids for all of the required work including the repair and replacement of thermostats and variable air volume (VAV) equipment. The VAV work as described in the specifications and drawings requires the contractor to remove the ceilings in order to access the VAV equipment, then replace and repair the ceilings, as necessary. [1] Amendment 1 to the solicitation inserted a new pricing schedule which instructed bidders to submit unit prices for thermostats and VAVs in addition to a lump-sum bid. Under the blank space for the lump-sum bid, the IFB included the caution: "THE LUMP SUM BID SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS FOR UNIT-PRICED ITEMS LISTED BELOW." Under the unit-priced items, the amendment included blanks for four prices: thermostats and three types of VAVs, with estimated quantities specified for each. The scope of work for thermostat replacement and VAV work was not changed by this amendment. GSA received eight bids; B-G submitted the low bid of $430,825. B-G's bid included the following statement on its bid schedule, below the VAV unit prices: "CEILING DEMO [demolition], REMOVAL & REPAIR NOT INCLUDED IN VAV TERMINAL UNIT PRICING." By letter of June 20, the contracting officer requested an explanation of this statement to which the protester responded by letters dated June 23 and 28. B-G explained that the firm "wanted to qualify what our pricing did not include" because the costs associated with VAV ceiling work were included in the firm's lump-sum price. Nevertheless, the contracting officer concluded that the language inserted in the protester's bid excluded required ceiling work from the unit priced items and thus required rejection of the bid as nonresponsive. GSA subsequently made award to All State, which had submitted the next lowest bid of $448,150. This protest to our Office followed an agency-level protest which the contracting officer denied. A bid must be responsive to be considered for award, which means that the bid must be an offer to perform, without exception, the exact thing called for in the solicitation and, upon acceptance, will bind the contractor to perform in accordance with the material terms and conditions of the IFB. Stay, Inc., B-237073, Dec. 22, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 586. Responsiveness is determined at the time of bid opening from the face of the bid documents. Where a bidder provides information in its bid that modifies or takes exception to the IFB requirements, the bid must be rejected as nonresponsive. Southwest Marine, Inc., B-247639, May 12, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 442; Bishop Contractors, Inc., B-246526, Dec. 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 555. The protester contends that its bid was responsive to the solicitation requirements and should not have been rejected. According to B-G, the solicitation as originally issued and as amended did not require bidders to include ceiling demolition and repair costs in the VAV unit prices. B-G maintains that the IFB description of the unit-priced line items did not include any reference to ceiling demolition or repair work, but rather simply required that those unit prices include the cost of the VAV equipment being replaced. As a result, the protester insists that it properly included the costs for ceiling demolition and repair in the lump-sum portion of its bid.