Massaro Company; Poerio Inc., B-280772.2; B-280772.3,

Massaro Company; Poerio Inc., B-280772.2; B-280772.3, BNUMBER: B-280772.2; B-280772.3 DATE: December 4, 1998 TITLE: Massaro Company; Poerio Inc., B-280772.2; B-280772.3, December 4, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Massaro Company; Poerio Inc. File: B-280772.2; B-280772.3 Date:December 4, 1998 Joseph A. Massaro, Jr., Esq., for Massaro Company; and Keith L. Baker, Esq., and Jeffrey E. Weinstein, Esq., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, for Poerio Inc., the protesters. Kenneth B. MacKenzie, Esq., and Charlma Quarles, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency did not have a compelling reason to cancel solicitation after bid opening based upon allegedly ambiguous pricing requirements, where the solicitation, when read as a whole, is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation regarding how bidders were to structure their bids. DECISION Massaro Company and Poerio Inc. protest the cancellation after bid opening of invitation for bids (IFB) No. 9810 A/E, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the environmental improvement of three inpatient units at the VA Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The protesters contend that, contrary to the agency's stated reason for canceling the IFB, the solicitation's pricing terms were not ambiguous; the protesters seek reinstatement of the canceled IFB. We sustain Poerio's protest and deny Massaro's protest for lack of prejudice. The IFB, issued on June 1, 1998, required bidders to provide prices ("figures") for two bid items (items I and II, described below) and three alternates (described as minor additions or deletions to the IFB's performance requirements); a unit price for mine grouting also was required. The IFB provided, at sec. 01010, para. 1.2.A., the following descriptions: STATEMENT OF BID ITEM(S) ITEM I, GENERAL CONSTRUCTION: Work includes general new construction, alterations, walks, grading, paving, drainage, mechanical and electrical work, elevators, necessary removal of existing structures and construction and certain other items. ITEM II, ASBESTOS ABATEMENT: Work includes abatement of asbestos in the area of the work as well as in other selected areas, including the work described in ALTERNATE 2 below.[[1]] Amendment No. 2 to the IFB, issued on July 1, included the following clarification: Although the VA has asked for the price of the Asbestos Abatement work to be listed separately (ITEM II - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT . . . ) on the bid form, all asbestos abatement work is included in a single prime contract that will be the responsibility of the General Contractor. Nine bids were received at bid opening on July 15. Poerio's total bid of $11,401,500 ($10,687,000 for bid item I, plus $714,500 for bid item II) was the apparent low bid received. Massaro's total bid, calculated by the agency to be $11,586,000 ($10,886,000 for bid item I, plus $700,000 for bid item II), was the apparent second low bid received. After bid opening, the president of Massaro notified the contracting officer that the firm's item I (general construction) price represented Massaro's total bid price, since it included Massaro's item II (asbestos abatement) price. Massaro explained to the contracting officer that, prior to bid opening, the firm was unclear about how to price items I and II--i.e., whether the item I and II prices were to represent different portions of the overall work, so that the bidder's total price for all work under the solicitation was the sum of the prices bid for items I and II; or whether the price for item I should represent the bid for all work included under the solicitation, with the price provided for item II merely identifying the portion of the item I price related to asbestos abatement. According to Massaro, it asked an individual at the office of the VA's architect for the project for direction. Massaro states that the individual instructed Massaro to structure its bid, as it ultimately did, by including the price for the item II work in the firm's item I price. Massaro then listed its break-out price for the asbestos abatement work as its item II price.[2] The contracting officer requested work papers from Massaro to support the firm's claim as to its intended total bid price. Massaro submitted undated work papers, allegedly produced by computer on the day of bid opening.