Consultants Ltd., B-286688.2, May 16, 2001

B-286688.2 May 16, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The bidder has obtained no advantage over the other bidders and the integrity of the bidding system is not compromised if the bidder is subsequently permitted to revive an expired bid. Which was issued on May 15. Unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. The IFB was amended four times after issuance. Six bids were received and opened on July 7. Gilesair was the low bidder. Jackson Enterprises was second low. Consultants was third low. Acknowledged these amendments and "extend[ed] [its] submitted bid 90 days or until the Contract is awarded.". The agency was unable to make award during the 30-day acceptance period provided for in the solicitation and sought extensions of their acceptance periods from the bidders. View Decision Matter of: Consultants Ltd. File: B-286688.2 Date: May 16, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consultants Ltd. protests the Department of the Army's decision to terminate its contract and make award to Jackson Enterprises under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF40-00-B-0008, for the cleaning of grit chambers, holding tanks, and oil/water separators/interceptors at various locations throughout Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina. The protester contends that Jackson's bid should be rejected because Jackson allowed its bid acceptance period to expire. We deny the protest. The IFB, which was issued on May 15, 2000, contemplated the award of a requirements contract for a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods. The solicitation incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items), which set the period for bid acceptance as follows: (c) Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. RFP at 000071. The IFB was amended four times after issuance. Amendment Nos. 0001 and 0002 answered questions posed by various prospective bidders and set dates for site visits, while amendment No. 0003 extended the bid opening date indefinitely. Amendment No. 0004 set the bid opening date as July 7 and answered additional bidder questions. Six bids were received and opened on July 7. Gilesair was the low bidder; Jackson Enterprises was second low; and Consultants was third low. By letter dated July 18, Jackson, which had failed to acknowledge amendment Nos. 0003 and 0004 in its bid, acknowledged these amendments and "extend[ed] [its] submitted bid 90 days or until the Contract is awarded." Because preaward processing took longer than expected, the agency was unable to make award during the 30-day acceptance period provided for in the solicitation and sought extensions of their acceptance periods from the bidders. After extending its bid acceptance period several times, Gilesair, whose acceptance period was now due to expire on September 30, failed to comply in a timely manner with an agency request for a further extension; accordingly, the contracting officer determined that Gilesair's bid had expired as of September 30 and rejected it. /1/ The contracting officer then determined that Jackson's bid was nonresponsive because Jackson had failed to acknowledge amendment No. 0004. On October 17, the contracting officer awarded a contract to Consultants as the responsible firm submitting the lowest responsive bid. Jackson protested the rejection of its bid to our Office, arguing that the agency should have waived its failure to acknowledge amendment No. 0004 because the amendment was not material. By decision dated February 5, 2001, we sustained Jackson's protest and recommended that if the agency determined Jackson to be otherwise eligible for award, it terminate the award to Consultants and make award to Jackson. By letter to the contracting officer dated February 6, as supplemented by a letter dated February 21, Consultants protested the prospective termination of its contract and award to Jackson. On March 12, having failed to receive a response to its agency-level protest, Consultants protested to our Office. Consultants argues that Jackson's bid should be rejected because Jackson, like Gilesair, allowed its bid acceptance period to expire. In this regard, after on July 18 extending its bid for "90 days or until the Contract is awarded", and on September 26 confirming, in response to an agency request, that its bid would remain open until October 16, Jackson did not further extend its bid acceptance period until February 8, 2001, when the contracting officer, who had just received our Office's decision sustaining Jackson's protest, requested that it do so.