B-177472, APR 3, 1973

B-177472, APR 3, 1973

BID PROTEST - BID EVALUATION - REORDER QUANTITIES DENIAL OF PROTEST BY IMCO PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER FIRM UNDER AN IFB ISSUED AT ROBINS AFB, GA. SINCE THE EVALUATION CLAUSE OF THE IFB PROVIDED THAT THE REORDER QUANTITIES WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION OF THE BIDS, AND THE BIDS WERE SO EVALUATED, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO IMCO PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM DATED MARCH 8, 1973, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANY OTHER FIRM UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) F09603-73-B-0228, ISSUED AT ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA.

THE IFB CONTEMPLATED AN INDEFINITE QUANTITY CONTRACT UNDER PARAGRAPH 3- 409.3 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION FOR SEAL ASSEMBLIES FOR THE C-130 AIRCRAFT. THE SCHEDULE IN THE IFB SOLICITED PRICES FOR AN INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY AND THREE REORDER QUANTITIES. ALTHOUGH IMCO WAS THE LOW BIDDER ON THE INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY, FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES, INC., WAS THE LOW OVERALL BIDDER FOR THE INITIAL ORDER AND REORDER QUANTITIES. AWARD WAS MADE TO FAIRCHILD.

IMCO, QUOTING AN EVALUATION CLAUSE, CONTENDS THAT THE EVALUATION OF BIDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE FOR THE INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY ONLY AND THAT SINCE IT WAS LOW ON THAT BASIS IT SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE AWARD. THE CLAUSE THAT IMCO QUOTED WAS NOT IN THE IFB. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE ITS MEANING. THE CLAUSE THAT WAS IN THE IFB AND WAS CONTAINED IN THE IMCO BID WAS AS FOLLOWS:

D-6. EVALUATION OF BIDS

FOR PURPOSES OF AWARD, BIDS WILL BE EVALUATED BY ADDING THE EXTENDED PRICES (I.E., UNIT PRICE X QUANTITY) FOR ALL ORDER QUANTITIES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULE. OTHER PRICE FACTORS (E.G., FIRST ARTICLES, TRANSPORTATION, PACKAGING) SHALL THEN BE ADDED AS APPLICABLE TO ARRIVE AT A TOTAL PRICE EVALUATION. EVALUATION OF THE ORDER QUANTITIES SET FORTH WILL NOT OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT TO PLACE ORDERS WHICH EXCEED THE QUANTITY OF SUPPLIES DESIGNATED IN THE SCHEDULE AS THE INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY. ANY BID WHICH IS MATERIALLY UNBALANCED AS TO THE PRICES FOR THE STATED INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY AND REORDER QUANTITIES MAY BE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. AN UNBALANCED BID IS ONE WHICH IS BASED ON PRICES SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN COST FOR SOME WORK AND PRICES WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTATED FOR OTHER WORK.

THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE CLAUSE STATES THAT BIDS WILL BE EVALUATED "***FOR ALL ORDER QUANTITIES SET FORTH IN THE SCHEDULE." AS THE WORD "QUANTITIES" IS PLURAL, IT IS APPARENT THAT IT WAS INTENDED THAT THE INITIAL ORDER AND THREE REORDER QUANTITIES LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE BE INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION. ALSO, THE THIRD SENTENCE IN THE CLAUSE STATES THAT EVALUATION OF THE ORDER QUANTITIES WILL NOT OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT TO PURCHASE MORE THAN THE INITIAL AMOUNT. THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THIS SENTENCE IF ONLY THE INITIAL ORDER QUANTITY WAS TO BE EVALUATED.

THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAUSE REQUIRED BIDS TO BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF THE INITIAL ORDER AND REORDER QUANTITIES. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE ACTUAL EVALUATION WAS PERFORMED ON THAT BASIS, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.