Grot, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-276979.3, April 8, 1998

B-276979.3 Apr 08, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show that prior decision denying its protest contained any errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. Which was the stated basis for cancellation. We denied the protest because we concluded that cancellation on the basis of inadequate specifications was proper since the specification deficiencies were such that the solicitation did not adequately reflect the government's needs. Grot maintains that our decision is premised on alleged "admissions" of ambiguous specification made by Grot in the form of pre-bid opening letters requesting clarification of certain specifications. View Decision Matter of: Grot, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-276979.3 Date: April 8, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Grot, Inc. requests that we reconsider our decision in Grot, Inc., B-276979.2, B-277463, Aug. 14, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 50, in which we denied Grot's protest of 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. Grot argued that the agency lacked a compelling reason to cancel because the IFB did not contain ambiguous or defective specifications, which was the stated basis for cancellation. We denied the protest because we concluded that cancellation on the basis of inadequate specifications was proper since the specification deficiencies were such that the solicitation did not adequately reflect the government's needs, and the agency had improperly provided clarifications to only one offeror, namely the protester. In its request for reconsideration, Grot maintains that our decision is premised on alleged "admissions" of ambiguous specification made by Grot in the form of pre-bid opening letters requesting clarification of certain specifications, and asserts that those concerns had been addressed prior to bid opening by solicitation amendment No. 0003, which was issued on April 10, 1997. We deny the request for reconsideration. The solicitation was for the addition and/or replacement of fire protection devices and fire alarm systems in several buildings at Arnold Air Force Base. 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 and in some instances did not clearly define the scope of work. 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. After cancellation, the specifications were revised and a new solicitation was issued on June 20 with a July 22 bid opening date. Grot maintained that the clarifications and changes contained in the resolicitation were insignificant and that it was entitled to the award as the low responsive bidder. Based on the numerous and material defective solicitation specifications pointed out by the agency, we found the agency's determination to cancel the IFB was reasonable. We also noted in our decision that, while Grot asserted in its protest that the amended specifications were unambiguous, the record established that the protester repeatedly sought clarification from the agency regarding numerous specifications, including some that formed the basis for the agency's determination that the specifications were ambiguous. In its reconsideration request, the protester asserts that all its concerns expressed prior to bid opening were resolved by the agency through the issuance of amendment No. 0003. Grot further objects that the existence of specification ambiguities does not provide a basis for the finding that there is a compelling reason for cancellation, as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14-1404-1(a). Despite the protester's current position that amendment No. 0003 satisfied all of its concerns, the record reflects that, on the contrary, after receipt of the amendment, by letter to the agency dated April 23, the protester expressed continued concerns about the asbestos removal requirement and the agency's failure to indicate heat detectors on the plans. In fact, the record established that, while amendment No.