Southern Maryland Restoration, Inc.

B-270125 Jan 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Post-award protest by apparent low bidder whose bid was rejected and who verified bid price by asserting that the solicitation did not require removal of lead-based paint from wooden windows to be repaired or replaced is denied since protester's interpretation would not give effect to the solicitation's requirement. The bid schedule advised prospective bidders that the contractor was to provide all plant. That unit prices were to encompass all elements of performance to be accomplished under each line item. One of the construction specification sections referenced under this CLIN was entitled "Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Abatement and Disposal.". As well as requirements related to the actual execution of the work. [1] Bid opening was on May 3. View Decision Matter of: Southern Maryland Restoration, Inc. File: B-270125 Date: January 18, 1996 Post-award protest by apparent low bidder whose bid was rejected and who verified bid price by asserting that the solicitation did not require removal of lead-based paint from wooden windows to be repaired or replaced is denied since protester's interpretation would not give effect to the solicitation's requirement, when read as a whole, for the removal of lead-based paint from these wooden windows. Attorneys DECISION Southern Maryland Restoration, Inc. (SMR) protests the award of a contract to Barefoot & Company, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA31-95-B-0047, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, for window and pointing requirements at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The protester contends that the Army improperly rejected its apparent low bid. We deny the protest. The IFB anticipated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for these services, to be performed over 1 base year with up to 2 option years. The bid schedule advised prospective bidders that the contractor was to provide all plant, labor, materials, and equipment necessary to perform the work in accordance with contract specifications, and that unit prices were to encompass all elements of performance to be accomplished under each line item. Contract line item No. (CLIN) 0001, "Repair of Window Unit," required the contractor to repair 1,267 window units over the 3-year contract period. The description under this CLIN stated that "[r]epair of wood window shall be in accordance with referenced [construction specification] sections and include but shall not be limited to: . . . paint removal . . . ." One of the construction specification sections referenced under this CLIN was entitled "Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Abatement and Disposal." This section listed general lead-based paint abatement and disposal requirements, such as submittals, quality assurance, safety and health regulatory requirements, and equipment and materials, as well as requirements related to the actual execution of the work. [1] Bid opening was on May 3, 1995. SMR submitted the low bid of $997,939, which was approximately 55 percent below Barefoot's next low bid of $2,236,720, [2] and 70 percent below the government estimate of $3,307,391. By letter of May 9, the Army asked SMR to review and verify its bid in light of these disparities. SMR verified its bid the next day, stating that its unit prices were "in compliance with [its] interpretation of the plain language of the specifications." The Army was concerned that SMR may not have understood the requirements and met with the firm on June 9 to explore this possibility. The Army specifically asked SMR's representatives what it meant when it stated that it had complied with its interpretation of the specifications. SMR asserted that its bid had not included any amount for removal of lead-based paint because it believed that the specifications did not state that the windows contained lead-based paint. The Army disagreed with this interpretation, and advised the bidder that it could claim a mistake in bid. By letter dated June 16, SMR again verified its bid without claiming a mistake, and reasserted its view that the solicitation did not require bidders to include the costs for lead abatement for all of the windows in the schedule. SMR pointed to one paragraph within the lead-based paint section of the construction specification which stated that "[a] space by space inspection shall be conducted with the contracting officer. A written inventory shall be prepared that identifies the LBP containing surfaces." SMR queried why this inventory would be necessary if all windows are known to require lead-based paint abatement procedures. The contracting officer asked the District's legal counsel to review the IFB and provide advice concerning the presence of any ambiguities. Legal counsel advised that the Army could reject SMR's bid under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec.