Stanger Industries, Inc., B-279380, June 4, 1998

B-279380 Jun 04, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Line item No. 0002 was for providing all necessary equipment to perform the contract and line item No. 0003 was for periodic preventive maintenance in accordance with the solicitation requirement at section 15995 that preventive maintenance commence 60 days after the notice to proceed was issued by the contracting officer and continue until 90 days after the final acceptance date of the construction contract. Four bids were received by the January 8 bid opening. 291 was low and Nelson Refrigeration's bid of $733. 874 was next low. Because Stanger's verification was not specific. Stanger was again notified of a suspected mistake with respect to line items Nos. 0002 and 0003. Stanger stated that it understood that line item No. 0002 was a lump-sum amount and fully understood that line item No. 0003 was a 9-month periodic maintenance amount. View Decision Matter of: Stanger Industries, Inc. File: B-279380 Date: June 4, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Stanger Industries, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F41689-98-B-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Educational and Training Command Contracting Squadron, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, for commissary refrigeration upgrade and periodic preventive maintenance and emergency repair for commissary refrigeration systems and heating ventilating and air conditioning systems at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. We sustain the protest. The IFB, issued on November 17, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract and contained a bid schedule listing five line items with a description of the required work, a quantity and unit designation, and spaces labeled "unit price" and "amount" for each item, along with one space calling for a total of the "amount" entries as the bid total. Line item No. 0002 was for providing all necessary equipment to perform the contract and line item No. 0003 was for periodic preventive maintenance in accordance with the solicitation requirement at section 15995 that preventive maintenance commence 60 days after the notice to proceed was issued by the contracting officer and continue until 90 days after the final acceptance date of the construction contract. In addition, the solicitation specified a 180-day period of performance for the upgrade. Prior to bid opening, a prospective bidder notified the contracting officer that there appeared to be a transposition error in the bid schedule with respect to line items Nos. 0002 and 0003. The extant bid schedule indicated a 9-month quantity for performing the refrigeration upgrade requirements (line item No. 0002), and a lump-sum quantity of 1 for the periodic preventive maintenance (line item No. 0003). After examining the bid schedule, the contracting officer concluded it did contain an error and issued amendment No. 0002 on January 6, 1998, which changed the quantity and unit entries for line item No. 0002 from 9 months to one "LS" (lump sum), and for line item No. 0003 from one lump sum to 9 months. Four bids were received by the January 8 bid opening. Stanger's bid of $691,291 was low and Nelson Refrigeration's bid of $733,874 was next low. Although Stanger acknowledged all amendments, it submitted its bid on the original bid schedule and, as a result, entered a lump-sum entry only for line item No. 0003, and for 0002 as well. Nelson's bid contained a unit (monthly) entry of $5,740 and a total of $51,660 for line item No. 0003. The contracting officer notified Stanger that the government suspected a mistake in its bid and asked Stanger to verify its bid. On January 8, Stanger verified its bid. Because Stanger's verification was not specific, Stanger was again notified of a suspected mistake with respect to line items Nos. 0002 and 0003. By letter dated January 13, Stanger stated that it understood that line item No. 0002 was a lump-sum amount and fully understood that line item No. 0003 was a 9-month periodic maintenance amount. Stanger also stated that it intended to include the amended bid schedule as part of its bid package but erroneously used the incorrect bid schedule. By letter dated February 18, the Air Force informed Stanger that its bid had been rejected as nonresponsive because of Stanger's use of the superseded bid schedule. On February 27, Stanger protested to our Office. The agency reports that it will not award the contract until the protest is resolved. Stanger argues that its bid as submitted was responsive because the original bid schedule was nearly identical to the amended bid schedule, and its failure to use the amended schedule was a minor informality. Stanger also maintains that the correction or waiver of its mistake would not affect the relative standing of, or be otherwise prejudicial to, other bidders.