MCC Construction Corporation, B-276923, July 16, 1997

B-276923 Jul 16, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Under invitation for bids where award was to be made to the bidder submitting the lowest coefficient percentage factor. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to evaluate bids in accordance with the solicitation by using the wrong multipliers is denied where the evaluation was conducting using the multipliers set forth in the solicitation. Any alleged contradiction between solicitation provisions was apparent on the face of the solicitation and thus had to be protested prior to bid opening. Were deemed qualified to participate in the second stage of the procurement. The agency will issue delivery orders for projects to be performed at the three locations. Prices for individual delivery orders will be established by multiplying the awardee's proposed coefficient percentage factors by the prices of the specified tasks as listed in the current edition of a standard unit pricing guide. [1] Hence. View Decision Matter of: MCC Construction Corporation File: B-276923 Date: July 16, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION MCC Construction Corporation protests the award of a contract to Satellite Services, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAHA-44-97-B-0001, issued by the Virginia Army National Guard/U.S. Property and Fiscal Office for Virginia for maintenance, repair, or minor alterations at specified military bases. MCC argues that the Army improperly failed to evaluate the bids in accordance with the solicitation's stated methodology. We deny the protest. The solicitation, conducted using two-step sealed bidding, anticipated the award of a multi-year, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity fixed-price contract to provide these services to Virginia Air National Guard bases located at the 192d Wing, Sandston, Virginia; the Alert Facility located on Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; and the 203d Redhorse Squadron at the State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Six firms, including MCC and Satellite, were deemed qualified to participate in the second stage of the procurement, at issue here. Under the anticipated contract, the agency will issue delivery orders for projects to be performed at the three locations. Prices for individual delivery orders will be established by multiplying the awardee's proposed coefficient percentage factors by the prices of the specified tasks as listed in the current edition of a standard unit pricing guide. [1] Hence, rather than bids for fixed-dollar amounts, bidders were to provide separate coefficient percentage factors for each location's set of four line items, for a total of 12 factors. [2] The four line items listed under each location were for construction, repair, and maintenance projects during normal working hours; construction, repair, and maintenance projects during overtime hours; highway, water, and sewer line projects during normal working hours; and highway, water, and sewer line projects during overtime hours. [3] The solicitation's section C, paragraph 00100-3, "Statement of Work," stated: "Projects will vary in size and dollar amount. . . . It is anticipated that 90% of all work called for will be construction; the remaining 10% will be highway/sewer projects. Projects are expected to be distributed as follows: 85% Sandston 10% Virginia Beach 5% Langley" Paragraph 00100-8 of that same section, "Percentage of Work," stated that the percentage of work at each base was "an estimate used for evaluation factors for purpose of award." While the IFB stated that bids would be evaluated and award made in accordance with the sealed bidding provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, it was not until a pre-bid opening conference that the agency clarified that the basis for award would be the lowest coefficient. At that conference, the agency also stated that clarification was required as to how the agency would determine the lowest proposed coefficient, and that this issue would be addressed by amendment. Amendment No. 0001, issued February 3, 1997, contained the following instructions (underscoring in the original): "2. The following clarification is made for the basis of award: The basis for award will be lowest weighted coefficient as described below . . . "3. The lowest coefficient will be determined by weighing each line item against the amount of work to be performed as described in the Statement of Work. The weighted average is for evaluation purposes only and will not be incorporated into any resulting contract.