Dynamic Corporation, B-296366, June 29, 2005

B-296366 Jun 29, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dynamic Corporation protests that the General Services Administration (GSA) improperly canceled invitation for bids (IFB) No. GS-11P-05-MKC0016, to provide construction services at Federal Office Building Number 8 in Washington, D.C. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296366, Dynamic Corporation, June 29, 2005 Decision Matter of: Dynamic Corporation File: B-296366 Date: June 29, 2005 Robert A. Klimek, Jr., Esq., Klimek, Kolodney & Casale, PC, for the protester. Stephen L. Schwartz, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Compelling reason to cancel invitation for bids (IFB) exists where IFB contained pricing specifications that were ambiguous and that led to total prices from bidders that lacked a common basis for comparison. DECISION Dynamic Corporation protests that the General Services Administration (GSA) improperly canceled invitation for bids (IFB) No. GS-11P-05-MKC0016, to provide construction services at Federal Office Building Number 8 in Washington, D.C. We deny the protest. GSA issued the IFB on January 18, 2005 for construction services for the specified building. As the first phase of modernization of the building for use as office space, the IFB calls for demolition and removal of equipment and structures not intended to be reused. A major component of the demolition will be the abatement and in-place management of hazardous materials associated with the structural components of the building. IFB Section 02000, paragraph 1.0. The IFB called for a lump sum bid for all the work to be performed, including clean-up of hazardous materials. The bidder's price for the hazardous materials services was to be included in the lump sum bid; bidders were advised to base their prices for these services on the estimated quantities in the IFB, as verified by the bidders using the drawings and specifications provided, and by conducting building inspections. In addition to the lump sum bid, bidders were to provide unit prices for the hazardous materials services; these prices were to be used to adjust the lump sum price (either up or down), if the actual amount of hazardous materials encountered during performance was either 20 percent higher or 20 percent lower than the IFB estimates. The unit prices were to be included in the evaluation of bids. IFB Section 00120, Part 3 ("The low bidder for purposes of award is the responsible bidder offering the lowest price for the base bid (consisting of the lump sum bid and any associated unit price bids extended by the applicable number of units shown on the bid form)."). The unit prices for the hazardous materials services were to be entered on an attachment to the IFB. The attachment listed 19 categories of materials (e.g., pipe insulation, sprayed-on fireproofing, vinyl floor tile). For six of the categories, the form included spaces for bidders to enter three unit prices per category, under the headings "Type 1," "Type 2," and "Type 3." For seven categories, the form included spaces for two unit prices per category, under the headings "Type 1" and "Type 2." For the remaining six categories of materials, the table included space for only one unit price per material. The form also listed an estimated quantity for each material; for those materials for which more than one unit price was contemplated, the form repeated the estimated quantity under each of the two or three "types" specified. An example of one entry on the attachment is as follows: Code Material Identify Types of Material or Removal Method Having Different Unit Costs Est. Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost PI Pipe Insulation Type 1. 2560 LF $ $ Type 2. 2560 LF $ $ Type 3. 2560 LF $ $ Amendment No. 3, issued February 25, incorporated bidder questions and agency responses into the IFB. Question and response 13a stated: [Question] What is meant by Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 in the Asbestos Unit Rate Bid Form [the attachment]? Does it relate to pipe size or thickness, asbestos type or abatement method? Without an explanation, the line items are subject to interpretations, which may be different between contractors? [Response] The type 1, 2, and 3 designations are intended to provide the contractor the flexibility to bid different unit rates if he chooses to.