De Ralco, Inc., B-281042, December 7, 1998

B-281042 Dec 07, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Bidder's submission of prices for work to be deleted rather than prices for the work remaining after the deletion was responsive to solicitation requirement that bidders furnish prices for all line items. Where the bidder's prices for the remaining work are readily ascertainable from the face of its bid. Bid entry of prices for the work to be deleted was properly waived by agency as a minor informality which did not prejudice other bidders. De Ralco asserts that J&B's low bid should be rejected as nonresponsive because J&B's method of pricing the three deductive bid items was inconsistent with the solicitation requirements. The three low bids were as follows: J&B De Ralco Bidder A Bid Item 1 Base Bid $872. View Decision Matter of: De Ralco, Inc. File: B-281042 Date: December 7, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION De Ralco, Inc. protests the award of a contract to J&B Construction Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 509-50-98, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for renovating a wing of a mental health outpatient clinic. De Ralco asserts that J&B's low bid should be rejected as nonresponsive because J&B's method of pricing the three deductive bid items was inconsistent with the solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. The IFB requested bids for the demolition and subsequent renovation of the F wing of the mental health outpatient clinic at the VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia. It provided for a single award on a fixed-price basis, depending upon the funds available, and required bidders to submit prices for each bid item. The IFB schedule included a line item for a base bid, representing the entire demolition and renovation effort, and three line items for "alternate deductive" bids. The alternate deductive bid items Nos. 1 through 3 represent various deletions of the work, with each respective alternate deductive bid item deleting more of the work. Alternate deductive bid item No. 3 incorporated the deletions made in alternate deductive bid item Nos. 1 and 2, and made one additional deletion in the work to be performed, which consisted of deleting a storefront window system and replacing it with a hollow metal frame system with wood doors and vision glass, per specifications. IFB at IN-2. The VA received nine bids for the renovation project by the August 7, 1998, bid opening. The three low bids were as follows: J&B De Ralco Bidder A Bid Item 1 Base Bid $872,460 $912,350 $928,754 Alternate Deductive No. 1 $ 9,505 $899,550 $917,754 Alternate Deductive No. 2 $ 15,045 $887,000 $894,422 Alternate Deductive No. 3 $ 26 $887,000 $898,798 Abstract of Offers at 1, 3, 7a. The agency understood J&B's alternate deductive entries to mean cumulative deductive amounts from the base bid, thus the bid was calculated as follows: Total for Bid Item 1 Base Bid $872,460 Total for Alternate Deductive No. 1 $862,955 Total for Alternate Deductive No. 2 $847,910 Total for Alternate Deductive No. 3 of deductive amounts only, to confirm their bid prices. These bidders confirmed their bids and indicated that the prices entered for alternate deductive bid items Nos. 1, 2, and 3 represent the cost of the deleted work for each item. The contracting officer calculated each of these bidder's prices for the alternate bid items by deducting the prices for those items from the corresponding base bid, as reduced by any predecessor deductions. The agency intends to make award to J&B. De Ralco filed an agency level protest, dated August 12, protesting the award on the grounds that J&B's bid is nonresponsive because, under the alternate deductive line items, J&B improperly entered prices for the work to be deleted rather than the price of the work remaining after the deletion. De Ralco contended that J&B failed to follow the IFB's instructions to submit a price on each bid item because J&B did not list the "complete bid" on each of the deductive alternates. De Ralco Agency Protest at 2. The agency denied De Ralco's agency level protest by letter dated September 2, and this protest to our Office alleging the same grounds followed. The agency position is that J&B's failure to insert the price of the work remaining after the deletion set forth in alternate deductive bid item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 did not render J&B's bid nonresponsive because the total amount of J&B's bid for these alternate deductive items was otherwise evident from J&B's submitted pricing schedule. The contracting officer decided that this was a minor, waivable informality in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.405. /1/ The test for responsiveness is whether a bid offers to perform the exact thing called for in an IFB, so that acceptance of the bid will bind a bidder to perform in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of a solicitation without exception. Randy Sabala; John Button, B-251221, B-251222, Nov.