Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company, B-278725, March 6, 1998

B-278725 Mar 06, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the sediments or solids will be separated from the water. The sediment then is to be discharged onto a concrete pad and hauled away. While the leftover water will be discharged to a dewatering discharge pond and then returned to the reservoir. While most of the polymer is discharged with the dewatered solids onto the concrete pad. Provided that the polymer is suitable for use with potable water. The polymer he will be using. Submittal shall have complete information. Five bids were received and opened. The Corps realized that Mobile's interpretation of paragraph 7.6 was inconsistent with the Corps's intent. It was Mobile's position. That the IFB could not be read this way because (1) the NSF standard was not set forth as a requirement. View Decision Matter of: Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company File: B-278725 Date: March 6, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mobile Dredging & Pumping Company, Inc. protests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW31-97-B-0061, for dredging of the Dalecarlia Reservoir at the Washington Aqueduct in the District of Columbia. We deny the protest. The Washington Aqueduct provides drinking water to the District of Columbia and parts of Virginia, utilizing the Dalecarlia Reservoir as one of its settling areas prior to water treatment. The solicitation required dredging the reservoir of sediment and pumping the sediment through a pipe to dewatering equipment, where the sediments or solids will be separated from the water; the sediment then is to be discharged onto a concrete pad and hauled away, while the leftover water will be discharged to a dewatering discharge pond and then returned to the reservoir. The specifications permitted the contractor to use a polymer to bond with the sediments so that they may be separated and removed from the water. However, the specifications imposed certain restrictions on the use of polymers because, while most of the polymer is discharged with the dewatered solids onto the concrete pad, some polymer remains in the filtrate water--i.e., water that has been discharged from the dewatering equipment. Specifically regarding polymers, Sec. 02482 of the specification, entitled "Dredging, Dewatering, and Sediment Disposal," stated, in relevant part, as follows: 7.6 Dewatering operations shall be accomplished through a number of portable mechanical dewatering units. The portable dewatering equipment shall be either centrifuges, plate and frame filter presses or twin belt filter presses. Prior to entering the dewatering equipment, the dredged material may be mixed with a polymer, provided that the polymer is suitable for use with potable water. The Contractor shall submit to the Government, for approval, the polymer he will be using. The polymer shall be acceptable for use in potable water and be approved by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). Submittal shall have complete information, characteristics about the product and mixing proportions. Five bids were received and opened. Mobile submitted the apparent low bid of $3,428,950, and Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. the apparent second low bid of $3,468,060. Subsequently, following an agency-level protest filed by Sevenson and several exchanges with Mobile, the Corps realized that Mobile's interpretation of paragraph 7.6 was inconsistent with the Corps's intent. The record indicates that the Washington Aqueduct, the drafter of the specification, intended paragraph 7.6 to impose NSF Standard 60--a drinking water standard--as a limit on the amount of polymer permitted to be added to the dredged sediment prior to dewatering. It was Mobile's position, on the other hand, that the IFB could not be read this way because (1) the NSF standard was not set forth as a requirement, and (2) even if it were referenced, it is a drinking water (i.e., post-dewatering) standard, and cannot be read as limiting the amount of polymer added to remove sludge at the beginning of the dewatering process. Subsequently, the Corps (along with the Washington Aqueduct) determined that paragraph 7.6 was defective because it did not clearly state the agency's needs. Specifically, (1) as Mobile had asserted, the IFB did not reference the NSF standard for drinking water; (2) in any case, imposing the NSF standard as a limit on the polymer added (rather than to the amount remaining after dewatering) would be excessively strict (since the amount of polymer added before the dewatering process does not equate directly to the amount of polymer remaining in the treated water emitted from the dewatering equipment); and (3) it did not contain an effective means of ensuring that treated water would contain acceptable levels of polymers.