AABLE Tank Services, Inc.

B-274867 Nov 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contained in invitation for bids (IFB) precluded agency's awarding a contract to the lowest-priced bidder for the base work only without the IFB's two alternate work items is denied where the only reasonable interpretation of the IFB is that the "all or none" provision was applicable only to each schedule individually and that the contracting agency intended to award a contract for the base work and reserved the right to include one or both of the alternates work items in that contract depending upon whether the agency could afford the alternate work. It should have been awarded the contract. On which prices were to be entered for the work encompassed by that schedule. Eight bids were received by the September 11 bid opening. View Decision Matter of: AABLE Tank Services, Inc. File: B-274867 Date: November 12, 1996 Protest that "all or none" provision included on each of three separate bid schedules, one for base work and two for alternate work, contained in invitation for bids (IFB) precluded agency's awarding a contract to the lowest-priced bidder for the base work only without the IFB's two alternate work items is denied where the only reasonable interpretation of the IFB is that the "all or none" provision was applicable only to each schedule individually and that the contracting agency intended to award a contract for the base work and reserved the right to include one or both of the alternates work items in that contract depending upon whether the agency could afford the alternate work. Attorneys DECISION AABLE Tank Services, Inc. protests award of a contract to R.C.S. Construction, Inc. (RCS) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. FMAOO-1192, issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for removal and installation of fuel storage tanks at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. The protester argues that it submitted the lowest-priced bid on the IFB's base and alternate schedules combined and, therefore, it should have been awarded the contract. We deny the protest. On August 15, 1996, BIA's Aberdeen area office issued the IFB for removing several underground storage tanks, testing for and removing contaminated soil around the tanks, and installing above-ground storage tanks. The IFB sought bids for the base contract work and for two other items of work (designated Alternate #1 and Alternate #2) at three different locations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The IFB contained statements of work, specifications, and drawings for the base contract work and for each alternate work item. The IFB also contained three separate bid schedules- -entitled "Base Bid Schedule," "Alternate #1 Bid Schedule," and "Alternate #2 Bid Schedule"--on which prices were to be entered for the work encompassed by that schedule. Eight bids were received by the September 11 bid opening. The two lowest- priced bids--submitted by AABLE and RCS--contained prices for the base work and the alternate work items as follows: [1] Offeror Base Bid Alternate #1 Alternate #2 Total RCS $42,500.00 $56,950.00 $52,250.00 $151,700.00 AABLE $50,849.60 $53,614.50 $44,682.00 $149,146.10 On September 25, after ascertaining that BIA did not have sufficient funds to pay for having additional work performed under either Alternate #1 or Alternate #2, the contracting officer awarded RCS a contract for the base work only. AAble protested to our Office shortly thereafter. AABLE contends that it should have been awarded a contract because its bid was the lowest-priced for all three items of work combined. AABLE points out that each bid schedule in the IFB contained a statement that award would be made on an "all or none" basis. AABLE interprets the IFB's use of the term "all or none" as meaning that the agency would award a contract for all or any part of the work to the bidder who bid the lowest total price for all three items of work regardless of whether its bid was low on each bid schedule or on the work item awarded. The agency responds that AABLE's interpretation of the IFB is not reasonable and that BIA properly awarded a contract for just the base work since it did not have enough money to pay for either of the alternate work items. Offerors are expected to read the entire IFB in a reasonable manner. Innovative Technology Sys., Inc., B-260074, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 258. Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of the IFB's terms, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the IFB as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions; to be reasonable, an interpretation of a solicitation's language must be consistent with the solicitation when read as a whole. Id.; see also Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc., B-261089, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 259. As noted above, the IFB requested prices for doing the base work and for two alternate items of work.