Hall/McCabe Realty, Inc.

B-272875 Oct 29, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The spreadsheet was not listed on the bid schedule and was to have no effect upon contract award. Bidders were required to insert a per month. Section L-8 stated: "The following is provided to help the bidder consider in pricing items that the government will expect the eventual contractor to pay for out of his/her management price per property. Bids were submitted by the protester and Gulf Coast. The agency reports that the contracting officer decided that the absence of the spreadsheet was a minor. Gulf Coast's bid was the apparent low bid. Because that bid was approximately 61 percent below Hall/McCabe's bid. The agency requested that Gulf Coast submit the section L-8 price spreadsheet as a means of ensuring there was no error in the firm's price and that the firm understood the requirements of the contract. View Decision Matter of: Hall/McCabe Realty, Inc. File: B-272875 Date: October 29, 1996 Where solicitation required bidders to submit price spreadsheet covering all of the work to be performed under fixed-price contract, but the spreadsheet was not listed on the bid schedule and was to have no effect upon contract award, a failure to submit the spreadsheet with the bid does not render the bid nonresponsive. Attorneys DECISION Hall/McCabe Realty, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Gulf Coast Brokers/ERTI under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 003-96-063, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate asset manager (REAM) services. We deny the protest. The IFB contemplated award of a fixed-priced contract for management and related services for single family properties owned or in the possession of HUD in the Pensacola, Florida area for 1 year with 2 option years. The IFB at section B.3.A., required bidders to insert a fee for the base year and for each of the option years for each HUD-owned property assigned to the contract. Under sections B.3.B and B.3.C, bidders were required to insert a per month, per property price for custodial duties and a per lot price for work required on vacant lots. The IFB stated that the sum of those five prices would be used to determine the low bidder under the IFB. Section L-8 of the IFB, "Pricing Information," included a pricing spreadsheet calling for bidders to set forth their costs for the base and each option year for numerous items, including direct labor, fringe benefits, and other costs such as initial inspections, initial cleanups, securing properties, defective paint inspections and reports, initial and routine ground maintenance, photographs, subcontracting, administrative costs, rent collection, tenant complaint investigations, and eviction actions. Concerning this information, section L-8 stated: "The following is provided to help the bidder consider in pricing items that the government will expect the eventual contractor to pay for out of his/her management price per property. This pricing spread sheet must be returned with and equal the bid prices provided in section B.3.A." Bids were submitted by the protester and Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast's bid, as submitted, did not include the section L-8 price spreadsheet. Since Gulf Coast's bid included the prices in section B, the agency reports that the contracting officer decided that the absence of the spreadsheet was a minor, waivable informality in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.405. [1] Based on the section B prices, Gulf Coast's bid was the apparent low bid. However, because that bid was approximately 61 percent below Hall/McCabe's bid, the agency requested that Gulf Coast verify its bid. As part of the verification, the agency requested that Gulf Coast submit the section L-8 price spreadsheet as a means of ensuring there was no error in the firm's price and that the firm understood the requirements of the contract. Based on the verification, the contracting officer determined Gulf Coast's bid was not mistaken and not so low as to prevent satisfactory performance. After a determination that Gulf Coast was responsible, the contract was awarded to that firm as the low, responsive and responsible bidder. Hall/McCabe first argues that Gulf Coast's bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive. Hall/McCabe notes that the IFB required bidders to submit the completed spreadsheet with their bids and maintains that the spreadsheet was a material part of the bid since the purpose of that information was to confirm to the government that the bidder understood the costs of complying with the contract.