B-148654, JUN. 27, 1962

B-148654, JUN. 27, 1962

TO R. A. HEINTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF APRIL 12, 1962, PROTESTING AN AWARD TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SPECIFICATIONS NO. DC-5745 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BULLY CREEK DAM AND FEEDER CANAL, VALE PROJECT, OREGON.

THE INVITATION SET FORTH THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED UNDER 92 ITEMS, AND BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO QUOTE UNIT PRICES ON THE MAJORITY OF THE ITEMS AND LUMP SUM AMOUNTS FOR THE REMAINDER. AWARD WAS TO BE MADE TO THE RESPONSIBLE BIDDER QUOTING THE LOWEST AGGREGATE AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF THE LUMP SUM ITEMS AND THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FOR THE UNIT PRICE ITEMS.

FOURTEEN BIDS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION RANGING FROM A LOW OF $1,689,901, SUBMITTED BY H. G. MONTAG AND W. H. GREGORY, UP TO A HIGH OF $3,073,793.50. YOUR BID, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,797,667.20 WAS SECOND LOW.

YOU PROTEST THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOW BID ON THE BASIS THAT (1) IT IS NOT RESPONSIVE BECAUSE IT QUALIFIES THE TIME FOR AWARD; (2) THE BID IS NOT NECESSARILY ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE PRICES QUOTED ON CERTAIN ITEMS TO REPRESENT TRUE COSTS; AND (3) THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNBALANCED BID WOULD BE A DEVIATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED BASIS FOR AWARD.

REGARDING THE FIRST POINT, THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDE ON THE BID FORM (STANDARD FORM 21) THAT A CONTRACT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY IF THE BID IS ACCEPTED WITHIN "60 DAYS AFTER OPENING OF THE BIDS (OR WITHIN SUCH SHORTER PERIOD AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE BIDDER).'

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF THE INVITATION, BIDDERS WERE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO LIMIT THE PERIOD OF ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR BIDS TO LESS THAN 60 DAYS. THEREFORE THE 15 DAYS PROVIDED BY THE LOW BIDDER FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF ITS BID WAS NOT A DEVIATION FROM THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION.

WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND AND THIRD POINTS OF YOUR PROTEST, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:

"IT APPEARS THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNBALANCING IN BID PRICES OCCURRED IN ALL OF THE BIDS RECEIVED, AND THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL CONDITION AS IT FREQUENTLY HAPPENS UNDER SPECIFICATIONS INVOLVING MANY BID ITEMS. AFTER CAREFUL STUDY OF THE UNIT PRICES SUBMITTED BY ALL BIDDERS AND REVIEW OF THE WORK INVOLVED UNDER EACH ITEM, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO UNBALANCING IN THE UNIT PRICES OF THE LOW BIDDER WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST.'

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE FIND NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE AWARD MADE TO THE LOW BIDDER IN THIS CASE.