Dyna Construction, Inc.

B-275047 Jan 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dyna's bid was rejected as nonresponsive because the protester failed to acknowledge amendment No. 0002 to the IFB. The project was divided into numerous sections. This aspect of the project was the subject of a written bidder inquiry in which the bidder noted that while the solicitation drawings state at Note 10 on Drawing Sheets A2. " there is no indication on the door schedule (drawing sheet A8) or the bid specifications as to the type of frame to be furnished. The agency determined that the solicitation was ambiguous as to the type of door frame required. The government estimate was $1. The contract was subsequently awarded to Braselton. Dyna alleges that the amendment was immaterial because it did not impose any new. View Decision Matter of: Dyna Construction, Inc. File: B-275047 Date: January 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Dyna Construction, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid and the award of a contract to Braselton Construction Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62467-96-B-7664, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction services to repair/upgrade the quarters used to house enlisted sailors at the Naval Air Station in Kingsville, Texas. Dyna's bid was rejected as nonresponsive because the protester failed to acknowledge amendment No. 0002 to the IFB. We deny the protest. As issued, the solicitation asked prospective bidders to submit lump-sum prices for furnishing all labor, materials, and equipment required to perform various construction services required to complete the repair and renovation specified in the statement of work and solicitation drawings. The project was divided into numerous sections, including the removal and replacement of doors. The initial specifications and drawings require the contractor to provide 200 new sliding closet doors (Door Type 15) in the remodeled bedrooms but did not identify the frame type to be used to mount the new doors. This aspect of the project was the subject of a written bidder inquiry in which the bidder noted that while the solicitation drawings state at Note 10 on Drawing Sheets A2, A3, and A4 that the contractor must furnish "[n]ew door, frame, and hardware[ ] [-] [r]efer to door schedule," there is no indication on the door schedule (drawing sheet A8) or the bid specifications as to the type of frame to be furnished. Upon reviewing the drawings and specifications, the agency determined that the solicitation was ambiguous as to the type of door frame required. Specifically, the contracting officer noted that a bidder reasonably could infer that the opening for the type 15 sliding closet doors could be framed in sheetrock or wood rather than the desired hollow metal framing since the solicitation package did not identify any particular door frame for type 15 doors but did so for the other type doors. The agency also added a requirement for 1" trim. Thus, the agency issued amendment No. 0002 which stated: "In detail 1/A8/A8 [of drawing 5317914 (A-8)] add the following to Door Type 15 between the words "Doors" and "HW-8": 'including hollow metal frame with 1" x 1" wood trim at the head and jambs.'" The agency received seven bids, ranging from $2,153,000 to $4,351,000. Dyna submitted the apparent low bid of $2,153,838 and Braselton the next low of $2,220,000; the government estimate was $1,886,617. [1] Upon review, the contracting officer discovered that while Dyna had acknowledged amendment No. 0001 it had failed to acknowledge amendment No. 0002. The contracting officer rejected Dyna's bid because the agency regarded the amendment as material. The contract was subsequently awarded to Braselton, the next low bidder. Dyna timely protested to the contracting agency; the agency denied the protest, and Dyna filed this protest in our Office. Dyna alleges that the amendment was immaterial because it did not impose any new, substantial obligations on the bidders. In this regard, Dyna asserts that the solicitation as issued required hollow metal frames for the type 15 closet doors because paragraph 2.7, Section 08110 of the solicitation required the contractor to provide "steel frames for doors unless otherwise indicated" and Note 10 of the solicitation drawings (Drawing Sheets A2, A3, and A4) was silent as to the type of framing required for these doors. Dyna states that since there are no "solid" steel door frames (that is, steel door frames are always "hollow"), the steel frames referred to by paragraph 2.7 had to be hollow, and concludes that therefore amendment No.