Booth & Associates, Inc.--Advisory Opinion, B-277477.2, March

B-277477.2 Mar 27, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Which failed to include a completed supplemental schedule of individual hourly rates where the schedule was not used in the evaluation of bid prices. Was proper where the record shows that the IFB contained a material defect. Booth is seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Department of the Air Force from revising invitation for bids (IFB) No. The Air Force concluded that Redcon's bid was improperly rejected. That the solicitation was ambiguous and should be revised and reissued. The court asked GAO to consider the following questions: (1) would Redcon have prevailed on its protest? and (2) was the United States justified in deciding to revise the solicitation and resolicit bids from the technically acceptable bidders? View Decision Matter of: Booth & Associates, Inc.--Advisory Opinion File: B-277477.2 Date: March 27, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The United States District Court for the District of Utah requests an advisory opinion from the General Accounting Office (GAO) with respect to the complaint of Booth & Associates, Inc. Booth is seeking injunctive relief to prevent the Department of the Air Force from revising invitation for bids (IFB) No. F42650-97-B-0034 and soliciting bids on that revised solicitation. The Air Force elected to revise the IFB after reviewing a protest filed at GAO by Redcon, Inc. (file number B-277477), challenging a decision by the Air Force to reject Redcon's bid under the IFB as nonresponsive. Upon review, the Air Force concluded that Redcon's bid was improperly rejected, and that the solicitation was ambiguous and should be revised and reissued. When notified of the Air Force decision, Redcon withdrew its protest to our Office. After Booth asked the court to bar the Air Force from revising the solicitation, both parties agreed to a stay in the proceedings pending receipt of a decision from GAO. By order dated November 13, 1997, the court asked GAO to consider the following questions: (1) would Redcon have prevailed on its protest? and (2) was the United States justified in deciding to revise the solicitation and resolicit bids from the technically acceptable bidders? In accordance with the court's request for an advisory opinion, the parties provided us with a copy of the briefs filed at the court, and the administrative record, which includes the filings made to our Office. No further pleadings were requested or received. As described below, we conclude that the Air Force acted properly in deciding to revise the solicitation in this procurement, and resolicit for bids. Underlying this decision, we agree with the Air Force's assessment that the Redcon protest would have been sustained if GAO had reached a decision on the merits. BACKGROUND On July 29, 1996, the Air Force issued request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-96-R-0042, as the first part of a two-step procurement for design and drafting services in support of weapons modification programs at Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The solicitation anticipated award of an indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery contract covering a 1-year base period, followed by four 1-year options, with delivery orders to be issued to the successful offeror as requirements were identified. Upon receipt and evaluation of unpriced technical proposals, the agency concluded that the proposals submitted by Booth, Redcon, and Mesa Associates were technically acceptable. The agency then issued IFB No. F42650-97-B-0034 to the three acceptable offerors, and requested submission of sealed bids by 2 p.m. on March 20, 1997. The IFB required bidders to complete a pricing schedule using a composite hourly rate for the design and drafting services, which was multiplied by a government-provided estimate of staff-hours to obtain a price. Separate entries were to be made for the base year and for each of the 4 option years, at contract line item numbers (CLIN) 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, and 0401, respectively. Immediately following each of these entries were separate CLINs (CLINs 0002, 0102, 0202, 0302, and 0402) for data and drawings which were not priced separately. At the end of each of the CLINs related to a performance period, the pricing schedule included a summary line for the bidder to enter the total cost for that performance period. IFB at 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Only one CLIN was different from the recurring CLINs described above. At CLIN 0003, bidders were required to enter a price for the first delivery order during the base year.