The Ryan Company

B-275304 Feb 06, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bid responsiveness is determined at the time of bid opening from the bid documents themselves (including extraneous submissions with the bid and material incorporated by reference). That the bid was ambiguous. The IFB was issued on August 26. Ryan asked the Navy to consider extending the contract's duration to 365 days primarily because some necessary items were not immediately available. Which took no exception to any IFB requirement (including performance period) was the lowest one received. We will proceed with our bid with the belief that when this project is awarded that the notice to proceed will be held up until material is on site and the 195 days is for on site construction time only.". View Decision Matter of: The Ryan Company File: B-275304 Date: February 6, 1997 A bid should not be rejected as nonresponsive based on a pre-bidding communication in which the vendor objected to the performance schedule, where the bid as submitted took no exception to the invitation's requirements. Bid responsiveness is determined at the time of bid opening from the bid documents themselves (including extraneous submissions with the bid and material incorporated by reference). Attorneys DECISION The Ryan Company protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under Department of the Navy invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62472-90-B-8580 for the replacement of the electrical distribution system at the Marine Corps Finance Center-Housing in Belton, Missouri. The Navy rejected the bid because the agency believed, based on a pre-bid opening submission from Ryan, that the bid was ambiguous. We sustain the protest. The IFB was issued on August 26, 1996, with bids due on September 27. The solicitation required that the contractor begin performance within 15 calendar days and complete it within 195 calendar days after receiving award. By fax of September 18, Ryan asked the Navy to consider extending the contract's duration to 365 days primarily because some necessary items were not immediately available. That same date, the contract specialist asked the project designer to review Ryan's concerns. On September 24, the Navy received a courier-delivered envelope from Ryan referencing the solicitation number, which the agency placed in the bid box unopened. On September 25, Ryan sent the Navy another fax concerning a different IFB requirement, which the contract specialist also forwarded to the project designer. The project designer responded by message of September 25, including advice that the contract period should not be extended unless other vendors also indicated concerns similar to Ryan's. The contract specialist telephoned Ryan to that effect the next day, September 26. The Navy issued an amendment on September 27 addressing Ryan's September 25 point and changing the bid opening date to October 10. On October 9, the agency extended the bid opening date yet again, to October 22, via an amendment that provided prospective bidders with certain technical information. The Navy opened bids as scheduled on October 22; Ryan's bid (received that day), which took no exception to any IFB requirement (including performance period) was the lowest one received. At that time, the Navy also opened the envelope it had received on September 24. The envelope contained a copy of Ryan's September 18 fax concerning the contract period, and a second fax dated September 18 and showing a transmittal date of September 23, but which the Navy had no record of receiving, in which Ryan stated: "As we had stated in our letter to you on 9-18-96, it can take up to 203 days before material would be on site for this project. The 195 day duration has not been amended. We will proceed with our bid with the belief that when this project is awarded that the notice to proceed will be held up until material is on site and the 195 days is for on site construction time only." The Navy believes that Ryan's bid should be rejected as nonresponsive. The agency admits that the bid is responsive on its face, but maintains that Ryan's position as stated in the communication quoted above--that the required 195-day period should begin only after receipt of materials --which Ryan never retracted, renders the bid ambiguous with respect to the firm's commitment to the required performance period of 195 days after notice of award. We disagree. Responsiveness involves whether a bid as submitted represents an offer to perform, without exception, the exact thing called for in the solicitation so that upon acceptance the contractor will be bound to perform in accordance with the IFB's material terms and conditions. B-G Mechanical Serv., Inc., B-265782, Dec. 27, 1995, 96-1 CPD Para. 6. [1] Responsiveness thus is determined at the time of bid opening from the face of the bid documents themselves. Id.