B-167305, DEC. 15, 1969

B-167305, DEC. 15, 1969

SPECIFICATIONS--FAILURE TO FURNISH SOMETHING REQUIRED--INVITATION TO BID PROVISIONS WHERE LOW BIDDER FAILED TO RETURN ALL PAGES OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES BUT DID RETURN PAGE ENTITLED "COMPOSITION" WHICH IDENTIFIED IN DETAIL ALL PAGES AND PARAGRAPHS OF VARIOUS CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND SCHEDULES COMPRISING TERMS OF CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED, AWARD TO LOW BIDDER WOULD BIND HIM TO PERFORM IN FULL ACCORD WITH CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN REFERENCED DOCUMENTS AND PREVIOUS DENIAL OF PROTEST IS SUSTAINED. SINCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREPARATION OF BID IS UPON BIDDER, ANY CARELESS OR IMPRUDENT BIDDER WHO MIGHT RECEIVE INCOMPLETE SET OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND NEGLECT TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE ALL PAGES AND DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID TO ASCERTAIN COMPLETENESS OF SOLICITATION MUST ABIDE BY BID AND GAO CANNOT PROTECT HIM AGAINST HIS OWN CARELESSNESS.

TO BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1969, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST OUR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF YOUR PROTEST AGAINST AWARD TO ROYAL SERVICES, INC., UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DABC21-69-B- 0100, ISSUED BY FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA, ON MAY 26, 1969, FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES AT THE INSTALLATION FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1969 (OR DATE OF AWARD SUBSEQUENT THERETO) THROUGH JUNE 30, 1970. COMP. GEN. ----- (B-167305, OCTOBER 31, 1969).

YOU CONTENDED THAT THE FAILURE OF ROYAL SERVICES TO SUBMIT SEVERAL PAGES OF SPECIFICATIONS WITH ITS OFFER SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE REJECTION OF ITS BID UNDER THE RATIONALE SET FORTH IN B-167248, AUGUST 22, 1969. IN THAT CASE WE HELD THAT THE LOW BIDDER'S FAILURE TO ATTACH CERTAIN IFB SPECIFICATIONS TO ITS BID RENDERED ITS OFFER NONRESPONSIVE EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY RETURNED AN INVITATION PROVISION, ENTITLED TABLE OF CONTENTS, WHICH LISTED ALL DOCUMENTS OF THE SOLICITATION. IN B-167305, THE LOW BIDDER RETURNED A SIMILAR PROVISION, ENTITLED COMPOSITION, WHICH IDENTIFIED IN DETAIL ALL PAGES AND PARAGRAPHS OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, SCHEDULES AND CERTIFICATES COMPRISING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED. IN VIEW THEREOF IT WAS OUR OPINION THAT SUCH REFERENCES IN THE LOW BID CLEARLY OPERATED TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THE INVITATION DOCUMENTS INTO THE BID, AND THAT AN AWARD TO THE LOW BIDDER WOULD BIND HIM TO PERFORM IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE REFERENCED DOCUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECTED THE REASONING ON WHICH B-167248 WAS BASED, AND ADVISED THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY THAT THE HOLDING SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED.

YOU NOW RELATE SEVERAL BIDDING EXPERIENCES AND CITE SEVERAL SOLICITATION PROCEDURES WHICH ALLEGEDLY DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR REVERSING OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1969, B-167305. FROM THESE IT APPEARS YOU ARE CHIEFLY CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF RECEIVING AN INCOMPLETE SET OF SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS AND SUBMITTING A BINDING BID IN IGNORANCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL WORK REQUIREMENT. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION YOU BELIEVE THAT OUR OFFICE WOULD CONSIDER YOUR CONCERN TO BE OBLIGATED TO PERFORM SUCH WORK IF YOUR BID CONTAINED A LIST OF BIDDING DOCUMENTS SIMILAR TO THE PROVISIONS, DISCUSSED ABOVE.

OUR OFFICE HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION OF A BID IS UPON THE BIDDER, WHO MUST ORDINARILY BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ERROR IN THE BID UPON WHICH THE CONTRACT IS BASED. SEE, E.G., B-153639, SEPTEMBER 4, 1964. IN THIS PERSPECTIVE, WE QUESTION WHETHER ANY PRUDENT BIDDER WOULD NEGLECT TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE A LIST OF ALL THE SOLICITATION'S PARAGRAPHS, PAGES AND DOCUMENTS, PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID, SINCE THE SUBMISSION OF AN OFFER CONTAINING THE LIST WOULD APPEAR TO CONSTITUTE A CLEAR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT ALL DOCUMENTS SET FORTH THEREIN HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE PRICE BID. WHILE WE AGREE THAT A CARELESS OR IMPRUDENT BIDDER MAY SUBMIT A BID WITHOUT CAREFULLY CHECKING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER HIS BID SET CONTAINED ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, SUCH A BIDDER MUST BE PREPARED TO ABIDE BY HIS BID, AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE CANNOT BE DESIGNED OR DIRECTED TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST HIS OWN CARELESSNESS.

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, WE MUST REAFFIRM THE CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 31, 1969.