Mallinckrodt Inc., B-282902, September 10, 1999

B-282902 Sep 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Award was improper where solicitation overstated estimated quantity of one item by a factor of five. Protester's bid was low based on quantity estimate in solicitation. Mallinckrodt contends that the award to Amersham was improper. " Amersham's unit and total prices were substantially lower than those submitted by Mallinckrodt and the third bidder. Mallinckrodt's unit and total prices for the base year were $150 and $25. The Radiology Service confirmed that its estimated need was for 171 vials. The contracting officer determined that Mallinckrodt's prices and the third bidder's prices were based on supplying 171 kits with 5 vials per kit. While Amersham's prices were based upon supplying 171 vials. View Decision Matter of: Mallinckrodt Inc. File: B-282902 Date: September 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mallinckrodt Inc. protests the award made to Nycomed Amersham for radio-pharmaceutical products under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 614-46-99, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee. Mallinckrodt contends that the award to Amersham was improper. We sustain the protest. The IFB, issued on January 19, 1999, requested the submission of unit and total prices for an indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and two 1-year options. /1/ The solicitation contained a quantity estimate for each line item. Three firms submitted bids. Agency Report, exh. 4, Abstract of Offers. In reviewing the bids, the contracting officer noticed that on item No. 35, calling for "Ultratag RBC, 5 vial/kit 171 EA," Amersham's unit and total prices were substantially lower than those submitted by Mallinckrodt and the third bidder. For the base year, Amersham bid a unit price of $42 and a total price of $7,182. Mallinckrodt's unit and total prices for the base year were $150 and $25,650, respectively. Agency Report, exh. 3, Amersham's and Mallinckrodt's bids, at 10. As a result of this disparity, the contracting officer contacted the Radiology Service, which had requested the item be purchased, regarding this requirement. The Radiology Service confirmed that its estimated need was for 171 vials, not 171 kits. Agency Report, exh. 1, Contracting Officer's Statement. Apparently viewing the matter as a possible mistake in the bids, the contracting officer subsequently requested that each bidder clarify its bid by submitting a price per vial and a price per kit. As a result, the contracting officer determined that Mallinckrodt's prices and the third bidder's prices were based on supplying 171 kits with 5 vials per kit, for a total of 855 vials, while Amersham's prices were based upon supplying 171 vials. Amersham, in fact, modified the bid schedule to read "171 (34 kt) vial." /2/ Using the price Mallinckrodt advised it would have submitted per vial for No. 35, which was $30 (one fifth of its $150 per-kit price), the contracting officer determined the total price the bidder would have submitted for the item and adjusted Mallinckrodt's bid. This calculation, which lowered Mallinckrodt's overall price to account for a reduction in the estimated quantity under item No. 35 from 855 to 171 vials, reduced that firm's original 3-year total price of $589,552.42 to $527,445.22. Amersham's total 3-year price of $500,924.40 was unchanged, since the firm had priced based on the 171-vial estimate for No. 35 that the agency intended. Award was made to Amersham as the low bidder, and this protest followed. Mallinckrodt argues that the IFB clearly called for 171 kits, rather than 171 vials, and that prices should have been evaluated accordingly. Mallinckrodt points out that, had bid prices been evaluated on the basis of 171 kits, Amersham's total evaluated price would have been higher than Mallinckrodt's total price. That is, if Amersham's per-vial price of $42 is multiplied by 855 (171 kits of 5 vials each), its overall price would rise to $591,212.40. Mallinckrodt concludes that the agency's reduction of its stated needs for item No. 35 in the IFB was improper, and that on the basis of the IFB terms, Mallinckrodt was the low bidder and should have received the award. We believe that the IFB language, "5 vial/kit 171 EA," is unambiguous in calling for bidders to submit prices for an estimated 171 kits of 5 vials each, for a total estimated quantity of 855 vials. Where the IFB asked for prices per vials, it was equally clear. For instance, item Nos. 23 and 24 requested prices for a "Sodium Phosphate P32, 5mCi vial 12 EA" and "Chromic Phosphate P32, 15mCi vial 1 EA," respectively. IFB at 7-8. Item No. 35 does not request a price for a vial, but rather a "5 vial/kit." IFB at 10.