B-177074, DEC 19, 1972

B-177074, DEC 19, 1972

BID PROTEST - NON-RESPONSIVENESS - MATHEMATICALLY DETERMINABLE UNIT PRICE DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO BAMA JANITORIAL SERVICES UNDER AN IFB ISSUED AT MAXWELL AFB, ALA., FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES. EVEN THOUGH THE IFB CALLED FOR SUBMISSION OF A UNIT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, BAMA'S SUBMISSION OF A UNIT PRICE PER MONTH DOES NOT REQUIRE REJECTION OF ITS BID BECAUSE THE UNIT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT CAN BE MATHEMATICALLY DETERMINED FROM ITS BID. SEE B-166784, JUNE 16, 1969.

TO INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED:

WE REFER TO YOUR TELEFAX DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1972, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO BAMA JANITORIAL SERVICES (BAMA) UNDER IFB F01600-73 -B-0019, ISSUED AT MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA.

THE INVITATION, ISSUED ON AUGUST 24, 1972, SOLICITED BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED AT MAXWELL AND GUNTER AIR FORCE BASES. SEVEN BIDS WERE RECEIVED AND OPENED ON THE SEPTEMBER 15 OPENING DATE, AND THE AGENCY DETERMINED THAT BAMA SUBMITTED THE LOWEST TOTAL PRICE AT $275,413. YOUR FIRM'S BID WAS CONSIDERED TO BE SECOND LOW AT $292,252. YOU PROTESTED THIS DETERMINATION BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT BAMA'S BID WAS EITHER IMPROPERLY EVALUATED OR NONRESPONSIVE. ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1972, THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO BAMA NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDING PROTEST.

THE INVITATION AT SECTION D ENTITLED "EVALUATION AND AWARD FACTORS" PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"D-1 EVALUATION: FOR BID EVALUATION, BID ITEMS 1 THROUGH 13 SHALL BE COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS:

ESTIMATED MONTHS (WHERE APPLICABLE) X ESTIMATED MONTHLY QUANTITY X UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT

BID PRICES ON ITEM NOS. 14 THROUGH 17 SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVALUATION FOR DETERMINING THE LOW OFFEROR.

BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED TO INSURE THAT ALL EXTENSIONS AND TOTALS ARE CORRECTLY COMPUTED

D-2 AWARD: AWARD SHALL BE MADE IN THE AGGREGATE TO THE RESPONSIVE RESPONSIBLE OFFEROR THAT OFFERS THE LOWEST BID FOR THE TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF ITEMS 1 THROUGH 13."

THE BID SCHEDULE PROVIDED FOR THE INSERTION OF A UNIT PRICE AND AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT FOR EACH OF 13 ITEMS AND FOR A TOTAL PRICE. THE SCHEDULE WAS ARRANGED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.

ESTIMATED SF ESTIMATED

EST. MONTHLY MOANNUAL

MOS. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MONTHS AND MONTHLY QUANTITIES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE AGENCY. THE "SF MO UNIT" NOTATION APPARENTLY REFERS TO SQUARE FEET PER MONTH.

BAMA INSERTED A MONTHLY UNIT PRICE OF $11,726.99 IN THE "UNIT PRICE" COLUMN AND A PRICE OF $140,723.88 IN THE "ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT" COLUMN FOR THE FIRST ITEM. A SIMILAR PATTERN WAS FOLLOWED BY BAMA ON ALL THE OTHER ITEMS LISTED IN THE BID SCHEDULE. YOU ASSERT THAT WHEN THE ABOVE- CITED INVITATION EVALUATION FORMULA IS APPLIED TO THIS UNIT PRICE BAMA'S TOTAL PRICE FOR THIS ITEM ALONE MUST BE EVALUATED AS FOLLOWS: 12 MONTHS X 558,428 X $11,726.99. ACCORDINGLY, YOU CONCLUDE THAT BAMA CANNOT BE THE LOW BIDDER. YOU BASE THIS CONCLUSION ON THE PREMISE THAT SINCE THE INVITATION CLEARLY REQUIRES THAT THE UNIT PRICE MUST BE SUBMITTED ON A PER SQUARE FOOT BASIS THEN BAMA'S PRICE OF $11,726.99 MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR EVALUATION AS A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH ITEM.

YOU ALSO ASSERT THAT IF BAMA'S UNIT PRICE IS SUBMITTED ON OTHER THAN A PER SQUARE FOOT BASIS THEN ITS BID MUST BE CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE. SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION YOU CITE PARAGRAPH J-1 OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS WHICH STATES IN PART "*** BIDDERS SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE UNIT PRICE PER SF/MONTH IS INDEPENDENTLY PRICED FOR EACH CATAGORY OF WORK ***." THIS PROVISION IS INCLUDED TO ENABLE PRORATING OF THE COST IF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ELECT EITHER TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE WORK REQUIREMENTS. IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT THE LACK OF A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT WOULD PERMIT BAMA TO ALTER ITS PRICE IN THE EVENT OF A CHANGE.

IT IS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S OPINION THAT WHEN THE EVALUATION FORMULA IS READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BIDDING SCHEDULE IT IS CLEAR THAT BIDDERS ARE GIVEN THE OPTION TO SUBMIT A UNIT PRICE EITHER ON A SQUARE FOOT OR ON A MONTHLY BASIS. ALTHOUGH WE READ THE INVITATION AS CALLING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A UNIT PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, WE DO NOT CONCLUDE THAT BAMA'S SUBMISSION OF A UNIT PRICE PER MONTH REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF ITS BID. THE BID SCHEDULE INCLUDES BAMA'S TOTAL ESTIMATED PER YEAR PRICE ON EACH ITEM. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE FIRST ITEM IT IS CLEAR THAT BAMA'S PRICE OF $11,726.99 REPRESENTS THE MONTHLY PRICE BASED ON AN ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF 558,428 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT THE PER SQUARE FOOT PRICE CAN BE SIMPLY OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE MONTHLY PRICE ($11,726.99) BY THE ESTIMATED QUANTITY (558,428 SQUARE FEET). IN THIS REGARD, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER NOTES THAT BAMA'S BID BOND IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 20 PERCENT OF $275,413.85, WHICH IS THE TOTAL PRICE SPECIFIED IN THE BID FOR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 13. YOU KNOW, BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A 20 PERCENT BID BOND IN THIS CASE. THUS BAMA'S PER SQUARE FOOT PRICE IS MATHEMATICALLY OBTAINABLE FOR EACH CATEGORY OF WORK AS REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY WE CONCLUDE THAT THE AWARD WAS PROPERLY MADE TO BAMA. SEE B-166784, JUNE 16, 1969; AFFIRMED JULY 18, 1969.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.