Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Company, B-277651, November 7,

B-277651 Nov 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST A solicitation for a requirements contract should be canceled and resolicited where the contracting agency cannot establish that the solicitation's quantity estimates are realistic and reflect the government's actual anticipated requirements. Beldon argues that its bid is not unbalanced. Beldon argues that the IFB is flawed since the quantity estimates in the solicitation do not reasonably reflect the government's needs. We agree with Beldon that the solicitation is flawed and we sustain the protest on that basis. Along with an estimated quantity for each CLIN. [1] Bidders were to supply a unit price for each CLIN. Which was to be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine an extended price for that CLIN. View Decision Matter of: Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Company File: B-277651 Date: November 7, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Company protests the rejection of its bid as unbalanced under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF11-97-B-0006, issued by the Army for roofing repair and replacement. Beldon argues that its bid is not unbalanced. Alternatively, Beldon argues that the IFB is flawed since the quantity estimates in the solicitation do not reasonably reflect the government's needs. We agree with Beldon that the solicitation is flawed and we sustain the protest on that basis. The Army issued this solicitation for all labor, equipment, and materials necessary to repair and replace roofing on buildings at Forts McPherson and Gillem. The IFB called for award of a requirements contract for a base year and 2 option years. Section B of the solicitation listed 149 contract line items (CLIN) for each contract period, along with an estimated quantity for each CLIN. [1] Bidders were to supply a unit price for each CLIN, which was to be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine an extended price for that CLIN. The overall price of each bid was to be calculated by totaling the extended prices. The Army received bids from Beldon, Murton Roofing of South Carolina, Inc., and American Renovation and Construction at the following overall prices: Beldon $6,830,466 Murton $7,494,806 American $8,611,950 Agency officials concluded that Beldon's bid was mathematically unbalanced because it contained understated prices for some CLINs and overstated prices for others. The agency also concluded that Beldon's bid was materially unbalanced, because, due to its mathematical unbalancing, there was a reasonable doubt that the bid would result in the lowest overall cost to the government. The agency therefore rejected the bid pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.814(b) and 52.214-19(d). The contract was awarded to Murton. Work on the contract has been suspended pending resolution of the protest. As we explain in detail below, we agree with the Army that Beldon's bid was mathematically unbalanced. However, we do not reach the issue of whether Beldon's bid was materially unbalanced. Rather, we agree with Beldon's alternative contention that the quantity estimates in the IFB do not reasonably reflect the government's needs. In determining whether a bid is impermissibly unbalanced, the bid must first be shown to be mathematically unbalanced, which involves the assessment of whether the bid is based on understated prices for some work and overstated prices for other work. See Outer Limb, Inc., B-244227, Sept. 16, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 248 at 2. Next, to be rejected as unbalanced, the bid must be materially unbalanced, that is, there must be a reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting a mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government. USA Pro Co., Inc., B-220976, Feb. 13, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 159 at 3. Turning first to the issue of mathematical unbalancing, as the agency explains, Beldon's bid included unit prices that were substantially below the government estimate on a significant number of CLINs. For example, Beldon bid unit prices that were 25 percent of the unit price in the government estimate for wood board decking, 16 percent of the unit price in the government estimate for 1" x 6" wood fascia, 30 percent of the unit price in the government estimate for hip and ridge slate shingles, 30 percent of the unit price in the government estimate for 16 oz. copper flashing, and 12 percent of the unit price in the government estimate for various types of copper elbows. Beldon's bid also included unit prices substantially above the unit prices in the government's estimate on a significant number of other CLINs.