The Lisle Company, B-278205, January 6, 1998

B-278205 Jan 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest challenging the acceptance of a modified bid on the basis that the modification rendered the intended price ambiguous is denied where the bid remains low under any interpretation of the modification. Allegation that agency accepted a late bid modification is denied where it is based on speculation and is essentially contradicted by the record. The funds available for award were $8. Eight bids were opened on September 25 at 2 p.m. 692 Because Lisle's bid was apparently low within the funding limitation for the base bid plus additives Nos. 1 through 3. The protester was identified at bid opening as the prospective awardee subject to change upon further analysis. 000 amount should have been deducted from Conner's original bid entries for the base bid and various additive item combinations so that the appropriate comparative totals as modified by the September 25 letter were. View Decision Matter of: The Lisle Company File: B-278205 Date: January 6, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Lisle Company protests the award of a contract to Conner Brothers Construction Company, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA21-97- B-0053, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the construction of a rail loading facility at Fort Benning in Georgia. Lisle maintains that the agency improperly accepted a modification to Conner's bid. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The IFB, issued on August 26, 1997, called for a base bid consisting of nine line items, Nos. 0001 through 0009, with additive work included in line item Nos. 0010 through 0013. The bid schedule required bidders to enter five totals as follows: base bid; base bid plus additive No. 1; base bid plus additives Nos. 1 and 2; base bid plus additives Nos. 1 through 3; and base bid plus additive items Nos. 1 through 4. The IFB provided that the low price would be calculated by determining which bid offered "the lowest aggregate amount for the . . . base bid . . . plus . . . (in the order stated in the list of priorities in the bid schedule) those additive . . . items that provide the most features within the funds determined available" for the project. The funds available for award were $8,403,813. Eight bids were opened on September 25 at 2 p.m. The awardee and the protester filled out their bid schedules as follows: Conner Lisle Base bid $8,000,000 $7,795,443 Base + Add. 1 8,175,000 7,790,999 Base + Adds. 1-2 8,426,000 8,302,651 Base + Adds. 1-3 8,497,000 8,372,778 Base + Adds. 1-4 9,171,809 8,965,692 According to the agency, but questioned by Lisle (as discussed in more detail below), Conner's bid envelope contained a letter on company stationery, addressed to the agency, dated September 25 and signed by John B. Conner, Vice President of the firm, which provided in pertinent part as follows: RE: Bid Under Invitation DACA21-97-B-0053 RAIL LOADING FACILITY Fort Benning, Georgia To Be Opened: September 25th, 1997 at 2:00 P.M. Gentlemen: Please XXX deduct the lump sum of $ [157,000] XX from [0001 JBC] our Bid Item 0008 and modify totals accordingly. [1] The contracting officer states that, at bid opening, she deducted the amount of $157,000 from Conner's base bid only and announced the totals as follows: Conner Lisle Base bid $7,843,000 $7,795,443 Base + Add. 1 8,175,000 7,990,999 Base + Adds. 1-2 8,426,000 8,302,651 Base + Adds. 1-3 8,497,000 8,372,778 Base + Adds. 1-4 9,171,809 8,965,692 Because Lisle's bid was apparently low within the funding limitation for the base bid plus additives Nos. 1 through 3, the protester was identified at bid opening as the prospective awardee subject to change upon further analysis. The agency states that, on the following day, September 26, it realized that the $157,000 amount should have been deducted from Conner's original bid entries for the base bid and various additive item combinations so that the appropriate comparative totals as modified by the September 25 letter were, in fact, as follows: Conner Lisle Base bid $7,843,000 $7,795,443 Base bid + Add. 1 8,018,000 7,990,999 Base bid + Adds. 1-2 8,269,000 8,302,651 Base bid + Adds. 1-3 8,340,000 8,372,778 Base bid + Adds. 1-4 9,014,809 8,965,692 Based on this analysis, the agency awarded Conner the contract for the base items plus additives Nos. 1 through 3, because the modified total of $8,340,000 provided the most features within the funding limitation and was below Lisle's bid for the same items.