Grot, Inc., B-276979.2; B-277463, August 14, 1997

Grot, Inc., B-276979.2; B-277463, August 14, 1997 BNUMBER: B-276979.2; B-277463 DATE: August 14, 1997 TITLE: Grot, Inc., B-276979.2; B-277463, August 14, 1997 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Grot, Inc. File: B-276979.2; B-277463 Date:August 14, 1997 Andrew J. Kilpatrick, Jr., Esq., Hickman, Sumners, Goza & Gore, for the protester. Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., and Larry E. Beall, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly canceled invitation for bids after bid opening where the solicitation specifications did not adequately set forth the agency's requirements, and prior to bid opening, the agency had provided only one of several offerors with informal clarifications regarding the actual requirements. DECISION Grot, Inc. protests the cancellation after bid opening of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA01-97-B-0033, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and the resolicitation of the same requirement for upgrade of fire protection at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee. We deny the protests. The procurement is for the addition and/or replacement of fire protection devices and fire alarm systems in several buildings at Arnold Air Force Base. The specifications included requirements for heat and smoke detectors, fire alarm panels, horns and miscellaneous appurtenances. The successful firm was to perform all work and furnish all plant, labor, equipment, and materials required by the specifications and drawings. The IFB consisted of 17 base bid items and 6 option items, each separately priced. The IFB contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the responsible bidder submitting the low responsive bid on the base items and all options items. Four bids were received by the April 29 bid opening, ranging from $1,322,807 to $3,017,218. The government estimate was $1,285,214. Grot's bid of $2,282,000 became low after the apparent low bidder claimed a mistake in bid and was allowed to withdraw its bid. When the agency compared the three remaining bids with the government's estimate, it concluded that none of them was in the "awardable range" (presumably meaning that none was at a reasonable price). The agency subsequently examined the solicitation and determined that the specifications were ambiguous. For example, the agency concluded that the following specifications were defective: 1. Specification 16721 did not clearly define the scope of work and ambiguities existed between plans and specifications. 2. Neither the drawings nor specifications clearly indicate the scope of work in testing the existing fire alarm/detection system. 3. The scope of work for the removal of lead paint was not clearly defined in the solicitation. 4. The scope of work was not clearly defined for additions to or replacement of existing fire alarm/detection systems devices for numerous buildings. 5. The drawing for Building 895 required a new fire alarm control panel and radio transmitter, but did not indicate the number of zones. Accordingly, the agency determined that the system design had to be clarified to ensure accurate understanding of the scope of work by bidders and concluded that this constituted a compelling reason to cancel the IFB. The bidders were notified of the cancellation by letter dated May 28. The specifications were revised and a new solicitation was issued on June 20 with a July 22 bid opening date.[1] Grot asserts that the agency lacked a compelling reason to cancel because the IFB did not contain ambiguous or defective specifications. The protester maintains that the plans and specifications were sufficiently clear to permit the government to estimate the cost of the work, as well as to permit four firms to formulate and submit bids on the project. While Grot appears to concede that the resolicitation issued on June 20, for which the government estimate is $2,000,000, addressed these ambiguities and also added a requirement for a supervisor, Grot takes the position that these clarifications and changes are insignificant. With respect to the clarification of the scope of required lead paint abatement activity by the contractor, Grot contends that this simply codifies its understanding of this provision. It is the protester's position that the scope of lead paint abatement is clearly defined by the specifications, which require only the area of paint which is disturbed to be abated.