American Analytical & Technical Services, Inc., B-282277.2, July 16, 1999

B-282277.2 Jul 16, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency properly did not reject bids as nonresponsive that failed to include prices for certain contract line items (CLIN) where prices were submitted for all of the sub-CLINs that comprised the CLIN. American contends that certain bids failed to properly complete the IFB pricing schedule and therefore should have been rejected as nonresponsive. Was to procure multiple contractors under indefinite-quantity contracts to provide laboratory services to analyze samples from hazardous waste sites to determine the presence and concentration of certain organic analytes in aqueous and non-aqueous samples. Only bidders who first met the specified qualifications and responsibility requirements were eligible for awards. View Decision Matter of: American Analytical & Technical Services, Inc. File: B-282277.2 Date: July 16, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION American Analytical & Technical Services, Inc. protests the agency's actions under invitation for bids (IFB) No. PR-HQ-98-00031, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for laboratory services. American contends that certain bids failed to properly complete the IFB pricing schedule and therefore should have been rejected as nonresponsive. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued July 22, 1998, was to procure multiple contractors under indefinite-quantity contracts to provide laboratory services to analyze samples from hazardous waste sites to determine the presence and concentration of certain organic analytes in aqueous and non-aqueous samples. IFB Sec. B.1. As amended, the IFB allowed bidders to bid based on a maximum monthly capacity of 100 samples per month, 300 samples per month, or a combination of both. IFB amend. 3, Sec. B-2. The IFB contemplated the award of 19 1-year contracts with two yearly options, with no more than 3 contracts to be awarded to one bidder, and with 9 of the contracts based on a 100-sample monthly capacity and 10 of the contracts based on a 300-sample monthly capacity. IFB amend. 3, at 2; amend. 5, at 3, 7. Under the IFB, only bidders who first met the specified qualifications and responsibility requirements were eligible for awards. RFP amend. 3, Sec. L.3, at 11. To implement the award scheme, the IFB contained price schedules based on a 100-sample per month capacity and on a 300-sample per month capacity. For the 100-sample capacity contracts, the successful contractors were guaranteed a minimum of 75 samples per year with a maximum of 1,200 samples per year, and for the 300-sample capacity contracts there was a minimum of 75 samples and a maximum of 3,600 samples per year. The bid schedules included various contract line items (CLIN), each entitled "Full Sample Analysis," under which there appeared sub-CLINs for providing "Full Sample Analysis" within various turnaround times. The schedules required bidders to enter a unit price and extended total for each sub-CLIN. For example, the following bid schedule appeared in the amendment No. 5 to the IFB, at 4-5, for the base period 100-sample per month requirement: /1/ Base Period CLIN Sample Type Minimum Maximum Unit Extended NO. Prices Price 0001 Full Sample 75 1,200 $ $ Analysis 0001A Full Sample 0 720 $ Analysis 21 Days 0001B Full Sample 0 252 $ Analysis 14 Days 0001C Full Sample 0 108 $ Analysis 07 Days 0001D Full Sample 0 108 $ Analysis 72 Hours * 0001E Full Sample 0 12 $ Analysis 48 Hours ** Total Base Period $___________________ * Semivolatile and Pesticides Only with Full Sample Analysis within 7 days ** Volatile Organics Only with Full Sample Analysis within 7 days The IFB advised bidders that the CLIN was designated by a number, e.g., 0001, for which there was a minimum and maximum number of samples; that sub-CLINs designated as 0001A, 0001B, etc. were sub-units of the CLINs; that bidders should bid all or none for the maximum monthly capacity selected; and that the maximum number of samples for each sub-CLIN was included on the pricing schedule for evaluation purposes only. IFB amend. 5, at 3-4. Twenty-three bids were received in response to the IFB. Fourteen of the bids were eliminated from consideration for various reasons, and the remaining nine bids, including American's, were determined to be responsive and to satisfy the required qualifications. /2/ Agency Report at 3-4. EPA noted that several bidders, including American, had inserted unit and extended prices in the space provided for the CLIN itself, when the agency had not intended that bidders do so. Consequently, on April 2 and 6, EPA advised the bidders whose bids were still being considered that prices were to be submitted for the sub-CLINs only, and requested that the bidders verify their bid prices, based on not submitting prices for the CLINs. Id. at 4 & exh. 42. All of these bidders verified their bids, including American.