B-165359, FEB. 4, 1969

B-165359, FEB. 4, 1969

TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORPORATION:

WE MAKE FURTHER REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1968, AND WE REFER ALSO TO YOUR LETTERS DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1968, AND JANUARY 3, 1969, PROTESTING THAT AWARD UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 2PBO-RC-505 SHOULD BE MADE TO EITHER BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORPORATION OR PENN WINDOW CLEANING CO., INC., AND NOT TO ANY OTHER BIDDER. THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) HAS INDICATED AN INTENT TO MAKE AWARD TO ALLSTATE ASSOCIATES, INC., AS THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AS TO EACH OF THE 10 LOCATIONS.

THE INVITATION WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1968, AND THE OPENING OF BIDS WAS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 27. THE SERVICES BEING PROCURED WERE STRIPPING, WAXING AND BUFFING OF FLOORS IN 10 GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDINGS IN THE BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN, BROOKLYN, AND QUEENS IN NEW YORK CITY. THE PERIOD DURING WHICH SAID SERVICES WERE TO BE RENDERED WAS OCTOBER 15, 1968, THROUGH APRIL 14, 1969, WITH AN OPTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RENEW ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS UP TO JUNE 30, 1969. THE BIDDERS WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO:

"FURNISH ALL LABOR, MATERIAL, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR FLOOR STRIPPING, WAXING AND/OR BUFFING OF CORRIDORS AND OFFICE SPACE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO OFFICES, COURTROOMS, JURY ROOMS, EXECUTIVE OFFICES, CLINICS, LABORATORIES, EXAMINATION ROOMS, WAITING ROOMS, ETC.) IN THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.' A TABLE WAS PROVIDED ON WHICH THE 10 LOCATIONS WERE LISTED IN A VERTICAL COLUMN. THE REMAINDER OF THE TABLE CONSISTED OF A SERIES OF VERTICAL COLUMNS WITH VARIOUS DESCRIPTIVE HEADINGS. THE TABLE IS AS FOLLOWS: ITEM CORRIDOR PRICE PER SQ. FT.

PRICE FOR CORRIDOR

SQ. FT. STRIPPING AND WAXING BUFFING CLEANING (FLOOR) ---- ---- --- -----

1 -0- -0- -0- -0-

2 13,768

3 29,031

4 11,720

5 61,831

6 5,265

7 30,712

8 46,872

9 93,804 10 206,718 OFFICE SPACE PRICE PER SQ. FT. PRICE FOR TOTAL AGGREGATE * SQUARE FEET STRIPPING OFFICE PRICE CORRIDOR

AND WAXING BUFFING CLEANING AND OFFICE

(FLOOR) CLEANING (FLOOR) ------------ -- -------------- ------- --------- ----------------- 167,489

78,365 213,467

60,096 408,571 183,822

88,127 342,096 410,817 906,711

BENEATH THIS TABLE APPEARED SEVERAL NOTATIONS. ONE STATED THAT "SEPARATE AWARDS WILL BE MADE TO LOW QUALIFIED BIDDER FOR EACH LOCATION.' BIDDERS WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT "ADDITIONAL WAXINGS AND/OR BUFFINGS MAY BE REQUESTED FOR CLINIC OR HEALTH UNIT SPACE IN LOCATION ITEMS NO. 4, 8 AND 9 BY THE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE AND SHALL BE PAID AT THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT INDICATED FOR SUCH WORK UNDER THAT CATEGORY FOR OFFICE (FLOOR) CLEANING.' FINALLY, THERE WAS THIS DEFINITION OF "AGGREGATE PRICE," REFERENCED TO THE FINAL COLUMN OF THE TABLE BY AN ASTERISK: "AGGREGATE PRICE IS FOR A SIX MONTH PERIOD AND SHALL INCLUDE TWO (2) STRIPPINGS AND FOUR (4) BUFFINGS OF BOTH CATEGORIES.'

AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, ALLSTATE SUBMITTED THE LOWEST AGGREGATE PRICE AS TO EACH LOCATION. FROM AN EXAMINATION OF ALLSTATE'S BID, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THAT COMPANY'S PRICES PER SQUARE FOOT FOR STRIPPING AND WAXING, AND FOR BUFFING REPRESENT THE PRICE FOR EACH DESCRIBED OPERATION. THE UNIT PRICE MUST BE MULTIPLIED BOTH BY THE NUMBER OF SUCH OPERATIONS TO BE PERFORMED DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD AND BY THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE TO BE STRIPPED OR BUFFED IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL AGGREGATE PRICE FOR THAT LOCATION. IN SHORT, ALLSTATE'S UNIT PRICES ARE PER SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL STRIPPING OR BUFFING.

BY CONTRAST, YOUR BID INCLUDED UNIT PRICES PER SQUARE FOOT FOR ALL STRIPPINGS AND BUFFINGS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION. THUS, TO ARRIVE AT THE AGGREGATE PRICE FOR A GIVEN LOCATION, IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO MULTIPLY THE UNIT PRICE BY THE SPECIFIED NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET. THE FOLLOWING IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR BID AND THAT OF ALLSTATE USING THE FIGURES FOR LOCATION NO. 3: I. ALLSTATE

-------- NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET (CORRIDOR) 29,031 29,031 UNIT PRICE OF OPERATION - STRIPPING X $0.005 BUFFING X $0.002

-------- -------- COST PER OPERATION

$145.155 $58.062 NUMBER OF OPERATIONS REQUIRED -

2 STRIPPINGSX 2 4 BUFFINGS X 4

$290.31 $232.24 TOTAL BID COST (CORRIDOR)

$522.56 -------

------- NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET

(OFFICE)

213,467 213,467 UNIT PRICE OF OPERATION - X $0.0097 X $0.003

STRIPPING

--------- -------- COST PER OPERATION

$2,070.63 $ 640.40 NUMBER OF OPERATIONS - 2 X 2 4 BUFFINGS X 4

STRIPPINGS

$4,141.26 $2,561.60 TOTAL BID COST (OFFICE)

$6,702.86 TOTAL BID COST (CORRIDOR) $ 522.56 TOTAL BID COST (OFFICE) 6,702.86

-------- TOTAL AGGREGATE COST, LOCATION NO. 3

$7,225.42

--------- II. BUILDING MAINTENANCE

-------------------- NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET (CORRIDOR) 29,031 29,031 COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR 2 X $0.06 4 BUFFINGS X $0.03

STRIPPINGS

$ 1,741.86 $ 870.93 TOTAL BID COST (CORRIDOR)

$ 2,612.79

---------- NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET (OFFICE) 213,467 213,467 COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR 2 X $0.08 4 BUFFINGS X $0.05

STRIPPINGS

$17,077.36 $10,673.35 TOTAL BID COST (OFFICE)

$27,750.71

---------- TOTAL BID COST (CORRIDOR)

$ 2,612.79 TOTAL BID COST (OFFICE) 27,750.71

--------- TOTAL AGGREGATE COST, LOCATION NO. 3

$30,363.50

IN YOUR SEPTEMBER 30 LETTER YOU EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT ONLY FOUR BIDDERS (YOUR COMPANY, PENN WINDOW, HARRY BYERS, JR., TRADING AS MODERN FLOOR WAXING, AND SAMUEL WARREN, INC.) UNDERSTOOD THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INVITATION. YOU FURTHER ALLEGE THAT THE UNIT PRICES SHOULD HAVE CONTEMPLATED AND REFLECTED ALL OF THE SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED DURING THE 6-MONTH PERIOD. YOU STATE THAT THE BIDDERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOUR MENTIONED ABOVE, SUBMITTED UNIT PRICES FOR EACH STRIPPING SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED AND EACH BUFFING SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED. YOU CONTEND THAT THESE UNIT PRICES ARE WRONG AND THAT THIS REQUIRES REJECTION OF THE BIDS. YOU STATE THAT AWARD ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A BID WOULD SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AT A LATER DATE SINCE THE ERROR IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE BIDS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, YOU CONCLUDE THAT YOU WERE THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON LOCATIONS 2 THROUGH 9 AND THAT PENN WINDOW WAS THE LOW RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON LOCATIONS 1 AND 10.

YOUR JANUARY 3, 1969, LETTER CONTAINS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE BID OF ALLSTATE WAS SUBJECT TO MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND WAS THEREFORE AMBIGUOUS AND NONRESPONSIVE, POINTING OUT THAT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION EXISTS BETWEEN ALLSTATE'S UNIT PRICES AND EXTENDED PRICES. FURTHER, YOU ADVANCE THE CONTENTION THAT ONLY YOUR COMPANY EXTENDED ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD INDEFINITELY AND THAT THE BID ACCEPTANCE PERIODS OF ALL OTHER BIDDERS HAVE EXPIRED WITH THE RESULT THAT ONLY YOUR BID CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE UNIT PRICE SCHEDULES SHOULD HAVE CONTEMPLATED AND REFLECTED ALL OF THE SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT. THE MORE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE INVITATION CALLED FOR PRICES PER SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH STRIPPING OPERATION AND FOR EACH BUFFING OPERATION. THIS VIEW IS BUTTRESSED BY THE FACT THAT THE TABLE IN THE INVITATION, SHOWN ABOVE, MADE MENTION OF THE NUMBER OF STRIPPINGS AND BUFFINGS IN THE INVITATION'S FOOTNOTE TO THE TOTAL AGGREGATE PRICE COLUMN. THIS WOULD INDICATE AN INTENT THAT BIDDERS SHOULD NOT APPLY THE MULTIPLIERS OF 2 (FOR STRIPPINGS) AND 4 (FOR BUFFINGS) UNTIL THE FINAL STAGES OF COMPUTATION. FURTHERMORE, THE INVITATION ADVISED BIDDERS THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONAL STRIPPINGS OR BUFFINGS MIGHT BE REQUIRED, TO BE PAID FOR "AT THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT INDICATED FOR SUCH WORK.' SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT DECIDE TO INVOKE THIS PROVISION, IT COULD READILY CALCULATE THE COST OF AN ADDITIONAL STRIPPING OR BUFFING BY MULTIPLYING THE UNIT PRICE FOR THAT LOCATION BY THE APPROPRIATE SQUARE FOOTAGE, PROVIDED THAT THE UNIT PRICE WAS FOR A SINGLE OPERATION AND NOT FOR MULTIPLE STRIPPINGS OR BUFFINGS. IT HAS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED THAT THE ONLY REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNIT PRICES IS THEIR AVAILABILITY FOR COMPUTING THE COST OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES.

WE CONCLUDE FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLSTATE BID THAT ITS UNIT PRICES ARE IN ARITHMETICAL CONFORMITY WITH ITS AGGREGATE PRICES AND THAT NO APPARENT ERROR EXISTS IN THE EXTENSION OF UNIT PRICES. IN ADDITION, THE BID OF ALLSTATE IS NOT OPEN TO MORE THAN ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION; THE MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATIONS SHOWN ABOVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE WHAT WAS ENCOMPASSED IN THE UNIT PRICES QUOTED BY ALLSTATE. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY GSA THAT ALLSTATE'S BID HAS BEEN VERIFIED AND THAT IT DOES NOT SEEM EXTRAORDINARILY LOW. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED FURTHER THAT, CONTRARY TO YOUR ALLEGATION, ALL BIDS WERE EXTENDED INDEFINITELY. THE DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE CITED BY YOU IN SUPPORT OF YOUR ALLEGATION THAT ALLSTATE'S BID WAS AMBIGUOUS AND MATERIALLY DEVIATED FROM THE INVITATION SCHEDULE ARE NOT RELEVANT HERE.

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE, ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE LOW BID OF ALLSTATE IS NOT SUBJECT TO QUESTION BY OUR OFFICE. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.