B-161843, JUN. 29, 1967
Highlights
SADUR: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 21. WHETHER THE PRICES FOR ALTERNATE NO. 1 AND ALTERNATE NO. 2 WERE TO BE ADDED TO OR DEDUCTED FROM THE BASE BID. YOU POINT OUT THAT THE BIDDER DID NOT COMPLETE THE BLANK ON STANDARD FORM 21 WHEREAT BIDDERS WERE TO STATE THE NUMBER OF CALENDAR DAYS WITHIN WHICH THEY WOULD COMMENCE WORK. THE CONTRACTING OFFICE HAS ADVISED US THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATES AND THAT THE AWARD WILL BE FOR THE BASE BID ALONE. OUR OFFICE HAS HELD THAT AN OMISSION IN RESPECT TO ALTERNATE ITEMS IS NOT FATAL AND MAY BE TREATED AS AN INFORMALITY WHEN THE AWARD IS TO BE FOR THE BASE BID. 45 COMP. THE LOW BIDDER'S OMISSIONS IN THE CASE OF THE ALTERNATES WERE NOT MATERIAL BID DEVIATIONS FROM THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE BID.
B-161843, JUN. 29, 1967
TO MR. MARVIN P. SADUR:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 21, 1967, PROTESTING, ON BEHALF OF GRUNLEY-WALSH CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO THE LOW BIDDER, EDWARD M. CROUGH, INC., UNDER NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. B-5014-67, AS AMENDED, COVERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FLUID MECHANICS LABORATORY.
YOU PROTEST ON TWO GROUNDS. FIRST, YOU POINT OUT THAT EDWARD M. CROUGH, INC., DID NOT INDICATE IN ITS BID, AS REQUESTED BY THE INVITATION, WHETHER THE PRICES FOR ALTERNATE NO. 1 AND ALTERNATE NO. 2 WERE TO BE ADDED TO OR DEDUCTED FROM THE BASE BID. SECOND, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE BIDDER DID NOT COMPLETE THE BLANK ON STANDARD FORM 21 WHEREAT BIDDERS WERE TO STATE THE NUMBER OF CALENDAR DAYS WITHIN WHICH THEY WOULD COMMENCE WORK, AND THEREAFTER COMPLETE THE WORK, AFTER THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE TO PROCEED.
THE CONTRACTING OFFICE HAS ADVISED US THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATES AND THAT THE AWARD WILL BE FOR THE BASE BID ALONE. OUR OFFICE HAS HELD THAT AN OMISSION IN RESPECT TO ALTERNATE ITEMS IS NOT FATAL AND MAY BE TREATED AS AN INFORMALITY WHEN THE AWARD IS TO BE FOR THE BASE BID. 45 COMP. GEN. 682 AND 42 ID. 61. ACCORDINGLY, THE LOW BIDDER'S OMISSIONS IN THE CASE OF THE ALTERNATES WERE NOT MATERIAL BID DEVIATIONS FROM THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE BID.
MOREOVER, WHILE THERE WAS AN OMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE TIME AS YOU HAVE INDICATED, THE LOW BIDDER BY THE TERMS OF THE BID ITSELF AGREED THAT IT "* * * PROPOSES TO PERFORM ALL WORK * * * IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH * * * SPECIFICATIONS, SCHEDULES, DRAWINGS, AND CONDITIONS * * *.' PARAGRAPH 2- 09 OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE INVITATION PROVIDED THAT "TIME FOR COMPLETION SHALL BE FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (530) CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN THE CALENDAR FROM DATE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE TO PROCEED, * * *.' FURTHER, THE BIDDER HAS NOT STATED ANY EXCEPTIONS IN ITS BID TO THE REQUIRED COMPLETION DATE. THUS, THE SECOND OMISSION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A MATERIAL DEVIATION AFFECTING BID RESPONSIVENESS.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO EDWARD M. CROUGH, C., IS DENIED.