D & L Construction Co., Inc., B-279132, May 11, 1998

B-279132 May 11, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the contract was awarded for the basic construction work only and does not include the additive item. 2. Protest that the agency improperly accepted the awardee's bid despite the fact that the bid contained alleged minor irregularities regarding the title of the person who signed the bid and the date that the bid was signed is denied. Where the title and date were clearly set forth in several other parts of the bid and the alleged irregularities do not affect price. Protest that the awardee's bid was nonresponsive to the invitation for bids' (IFB) requirement that toilets be supplied from two manufacturers named in the specifications is denied. Bid is not materially unbalanced where there is no evidence that the awardee's bid will not result in the lowest cost to the government. View Decision Matter of: D & L Construction Co., Inc. File: B-279132 Date: May 11, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION D & L Construction Co., Inc., protests the award of a construction contract to A.C.E. General Contractors, Inc., by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, pursuant to invitation for bids (IFB) No. R10-98-01. The protester alleges that A.C.E.'s bid was nonresponsive and unbalanced. The protest is denied. Issued on October 30, 1997, the IFB solicited bids for reconstruction and expansion of the Quartz Creek Campground, in the Chugach National Forest, in Alaska. The IFB required bids to include a fixed price for the basic work and for each of three additive items of work. Among other things, the contract would require construction of new roads and campsites; extensive landscaping; demolition of the old fee collection station; construction of parking areas; removal and refurbishing of campfire grates; demolition, removal, and reconstruction of flush-toilet and vault-toilet buildings; and installation of water and electrical lines to the flush-toilet buildings. Eight bids were received and opened on January 6, 1998. A.C.E.'s bid was the lowest priced bid for basic work alone ($1,066,007) and for the basic work and the three additive items combined ($1,153,507); D & L's bid was the second-lowest priced bid for basic work alone ($1,092,597) and for the basic work plus the three additive items combined ($1,176,670). /1/ After bid opening, the Forest Service decided to award a contract for the basic work only. On January 22, after determining that A.C.E. was responsible and that A.C.E.'s total price was reasonable, the contracting officer awarded A.C.E. the contract. D & L filed this protest shortly thereafter. The protester alleges that A.C.E.'s bid was nonresponsive because it included two different prices for additive item 1 (construction of a pavilion). D & L points out that A.C.E. inserted a price of $20,000 for additive item 1 in the price schedule of its bid, but inserted a price of $27,500 for additive item 1 in standard form (SF) 1442--the "Solicitation, Offer and Award" portion of the bid--thus, creating a $7,500 discrepancy. /2/ D & L contends that A.C.E.'s bid should not have been accepted because its price for additive item 1 was ambiguous. From a review of A.C.E.'s bid, it appears that A.C.E. made a mistake when it carried its prices over from the bid schedule to the appropriate block of SF 1442. A.C.E. inserted prices in its bid schedule as follows: Total Bid - Base Construction Item $1,066,007 Additive Item 1 - Pavilion $ 20,000 Additive Item 2 - Electricity $ 5,000 Additive Item 3 - Fire Pit Ring $ 2,500 `However, when A.C.E. inserted its prices into the "amounts" block of SF 1442, A.C.E. entered prices as follows: Base Bid $1,066,007 Additive 1 $ 27,500 Total $1,093,507 Thus, it appears that A.C.E. incorrectly entered on the SF 1442 the total price for all three additive items ($20,000 + $5,000 + $2,500 = $ 27,500) and mislabeled them as the price for additive item 1 alone. Under an IFB that includes additive work items, bids must be evaluated only on the basis of the work actually awarded. NJS Dev. Corp., B-230871, July 18, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 62 at 2. The Forest Service decided, because of funding limitations (prior to bid opening, the agency reserved $1.1 million for the project), to award a contract for the basic work only. As A.C.E.'s lowest priced bid was $26,590 less than D & L's next-low bid for the basic work alone, the Forest Service awarded the contract to A.C.E. Because the agency decided not to include additive item 1 in the contract, the alleged $7,500 discrepancy in A.C.E.'s bid for additive item 1 was of no consequence and did not require rejection of the bid. /3/ Id. The protester alleges that A.C.E.'s bid was nonresponsive because the person who signed the SF 1442 did not include her title as an officer of A.C.E.