Nabholz Building and Management Corporation

B-274930 Nov 21, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that bid schedule in solicitation for construction contained an ambiguity which led the protester to mistakenly include its bond costs under both a base bid line item and a bond costs line item is denied where the bid schedule clearly instructed bidders to set forth their bond costs separately. The protester's interpretation unreasonably reads into the solicitation language which is not present and ignores language which is present. " is set out in full in the solicitation. [1] In relevant part. Payment bonds. (2) Offerors will be evaluated initially based on their total prices. If the apparently successful offeror is an SDB concern. No preference-based evaluation will be conducted. (3) If the apparently successful offeror is not an SDB concern. View Decision Matter of: Nabholz Building and Management Corporation File: B-274930 Date: November 21, 1996 Protest that bid schedule in solicitation for construction contained an ambiguity which led the protester to mistakenly include its bond costs under both a base bid line item and a bond costs line item is denied where the bid schedule clearly instructed bidders to set forth their bond costs separately, in a line item set aside for that purpose, and the language in a referenced clause reiterated and explained that instruction; the protester's interpretation unreasonably reads into the solicitation language which is not present and ignores language which is present. Attorneys DECISION Nabholz Building and Management Corporation protests the award of a contract to Flynco, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAHA03-96-B-0001, issued by the United States Property and Fiscal Officer for Arkansas for the construction of a base supply complex at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Nabholz argues that the solicitation's bid schedule contained an ambiguity which led the firm to mistakenly include its bond costs under two separate line items. We deny the protest. The solicitation's bid schedule contained the following line items: ITEM DESCRIPTION 0001 "Base Supply Complex, BASE BID (Does not include additive bid items listed below)" 0002 Additive Bid Item 1 0003 Additive Bid Item 2 0004 Additive Bid Item 3 0005 Additive Bid Item 4 0006 "BOND COSTS, to include bid, performance and payment bonds. All bidders must enter their bond cost in this line item in accordance with [Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)] Clause 52.219-7008 located in section 00600 Representations and Certification." The clause at DFARS Sec. 252.219-7008, "Notice of Evaluation Preference for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Concerns--Construction Acquisition--Test Program," is set out in full in the solicitation. [1] In relevant part, the clause states: "(b) Evaluation preference. (1) Offerors shall separately state bond costs in the offer. Bond costs include the costs of bid, performance, and payment bonds. (2) Offerors will be evaluated initially based on their total prices. If the apparently successful offeror is an SDB concern, no preference-based evaluation will be conducted. (3) If the apparently successful offeror is not an SDB concern, offerors will be evaluated based on their prices excluding bond costs. If, after excluding bond costs, the apparently successful offeror is an SDB concern, bond costs will be added back to all offers, and offers from SDB concerns will be given a preference in evaluation by adding a factor of 10 percent to the total price of all offers . . . ." The Army received five bids and proceeded to read them aloud. During bid opening, one bidder apparently stated that the bid form was ambiguous as to whether bidders were to include the bond costs in the base bid line item, and that her firm had called the contract specialist, who advised the firm to enter such costs only in the bond costs line item. Nabholz then informed the agency that its bid had mistakenly included the bond costs twice--in the base bid line item and in the bond costs line item. The Army acknowledged this assertion, continued reading the bids aloud, and determined that Flynco was the apparent low bidder with a total bid-- inclusive of items one through six--of $4,019,200. Nabholz was the apparent second low bidder with a total bid of $4,046,500. Since Nabholz would have been the apparent low bidder if the amount it bid in the bond costs line item were subtracted from its total bid, the Army stated that it would consider the implications of the firm's assertion. In discussing the matter with the contract specialist, the contracting officer learned that, prior to bid opening, two bidders had called to ask if the bond costs belonged in the base bid line item. The contract specialist states that he informed each bidder that, in accordance with DFARS Sec. 252.219-7008, they were to separately list their bond costs on the line item provided for that purpose.