Wescott Electric Company

B-417448 May 08, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Wescott Electric Company, of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Cedar Electric, Inc., of Lititz, Pennsylvania, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 36C24419B0004, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for electrical services at the Coatesville VA Medical Center (CVAMC), Coatesville, Pennsylvania. Wescott contends that Cedar's bid was incorrect and unbalanced, and should therefore have been rejected by the contracting agency. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it fails to provide a valid basis for challenging the agency's action. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Wescott Electric Company File:  B-417448 Date:  May 8, 2019 James P. Wescott for the protester. Joseph M. Kanfer, Esq., Woolford Kanfer Law, PC, for Cedar Electric, Inc., the intervenor. David W. Altieri, Esq., and Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Alleged mistake in the pricing of alternate deductive items does not provide valid basis to challenge the bid for the base item, which offers to perform the entire project called for under a solicitation providing for award of the base item if funds are available and it is determined that the funds are available. DECISION Wescott Electric Company, of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, protests the award of a contract to Cedar Electric, Inc., of Lititz, Pennsylvania, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 36C24419B0004, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for electrical services at the Coatesville VA Medical Center (CVAMC), Coatesville, Pennsylvania.  Wescott contends that Cedar’s bid was incorrect and unbalanced, and should therefore have been rejected by the contracting agency. We dismiss the protest because, as filed with our Office, it fails to provide a valid basis for challenging the agency’s action. BACKGROUND The IFB was issued on December 4, 2018, as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 14 (Sealed Bidding), and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to correct various electrical deficiencies at the CVAMC.  VA Dismissal Request, exh. 2, IFB at 1.  In general terms, the contractor was to provide all labor, supplies, and equipment necessary to perform the tasks set forth in the solicitation’s statement of work (SOW).  Id.  The IFB also established that contract award would “be made to the responsive, responsible bidder . . . whose bid constitutes the lowest price to the Government.”  Id. Relevant to the protest here, the IFB contained a “bid schedule” table as follows: BID SCHEDULE – Bidders shall provide a price for each item to be considered for award. Bid Items and Description Amount BID ITEM #1: BID ITEM #1 SHALL INCLUDE ALL WORK INDICATED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. $ BID ITEM #2: THIS BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN BID ITEM #1, EXCEPT THE WORK IDENTIFIED AS DEDUCT-ALTERNATE No. 1, SPECIFICATION SECTION 26 05 74, CAMPUS WIDE POWER SYSTEM STUDY. $  (  ) *  *  *  *  * *  *  *  *  * BID ITEM #7:  THIS BID TIME SHALL INCLUDE ALL OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN BID ITEMS #1, EXCEPT THE WORK RELATED TO BUILDING[S] 15, 16, 58, 69 AND 70. $  (  )   Award Statement: The bid deducts outlined in the bid schedule above are listed in order of preference.  In the event the base bid exceeds the available funding, the government may accept and award one or more deduct items. Id. at 3. As summarized by the contracting officer, bid item No. 1 represented all the work set forth in the SOW, and bid items Nos. 2-7 each removed portions of the work requirements, in descending order of preference.  Agency Dismissal Request, exh. 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; exh. 4, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 1. Seven bidders, including Cedar and Wescott, submitted bids by the January 22, 2019, bid opening date.  The agency conducted a public bid opening at which time bidders’ prices were read aloud.  No dispute exists that Cedar submitted the lowest price for bid item No. 1 in the amount of $1,158,898, and Wescott submitted the second-lowest price for bid item No. 1 in the amount of $1,213,000.  Abstract of Bids at 1-2. Wescott was present at the bid opening and recorded what it heard each bidder’s prices to be, including those of Cedar (e.g., bid item No. 3:  $2,300, bid item No. 4:  $12,990).  Wescott Second Reply to Agency Dismissal Request, exh. 1, Wescott Notes of Bid Opening.  In fact, Cedar’s prices for bid items Nos. 2-7 were expressed as negative amounts (e.g., bid item No. 3: “$(2,300)”; bid item No.