B-219630, SEP 30, 1985, 85-2 CPD 357
Highlights
QUESTIONS BID WITHDRAWAL DIGEST: PROTEST IS DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC WHERE PROTESTER REQUESTS THAT ITS BID PRICE BE INCREASED BY OVER $65. 000 AND A NEW DELIVERY SCHEDULE BE NEGOTIATED IF ITS PROTEST IS SUSTAINED. TEC'S BID AND THE SECOND AND THIRD LOW BIDS WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. AWARD WAS MADE TO WORLD TOWER COMPANY. TEC ARGUES THAT ITS BID IS RESPONSIVE. BY INDICATING THAT IT WILL NO LONGER PERFORM THE WORK AT THE PRICE AND TERMS IT ORIGINALLY BID. THE MERITS OF TEC'S PROTEST HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY OUR OFFICE RULING ON TEC'S PROTEST.
B-219630, SEP 30, 1985, 85-2 CPD 357
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - MOOT, ACADEMIC, ETC. QUESTIONS BID WITHDRAWAL DIGEST: PROTEST IS DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC WHERE PROTESTER REQUESTS THAT ITS BID PRICE BE INCREASED BY OVER $65,000 AND A NEW DELIVERY SCHEDULE BE NEGOTIATED IF ITS PROTEST IS SUSTAINED, BECAUSE PROTESTER HAS ABANDONED ITS ORIGINAL BID. TO CONSIDER THE PROTEST ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED BID WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO GIVING THE PROTESTER A CHANCE TO SUBMIT A SECOND BID AFTER BID OPENING, WHICH WOULD BE CONTRARY TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING PRINCIPLES.
TOWER ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION:
TOWER ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION (TEC) PROTESTS THE REJECTION OF ITS LOW BID AS NONRESPONSIVE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DACW38 85-B- 0080 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, VICKSBURG ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT (ARMY), FOR 300-FOOT RADIO TOWERS.
WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.
TEC SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID OF $155,349. HOWEVER, TEC'S BID AND THE SECOND AND THIRD LOW BIDS WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE. AWARD WAS MADE TO WORLD TOWER COMPANY, INC. (WORLD), AT ITS BID PRICE OF $220,500.
IN ITS REPORT ON TEC'S PROTEST, THE ARMY EXPLAINED WHY IT VIEWS TEC'S BID TO BE NONRESPONSIVE. IN ITS REPLY TO THE ARMY'S REPORT, TEC ARGUES THAT ITS BID IS RESPONSIVE. TEC ALSO REQUESTS THAT AWARD BE MADE TO TEC AT THE PRICE BID BY WORLD, $220,500, RATHER THAN AT TEC'S ORIGINAL BID PRICE OF $155,349, AND THAT THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWERS BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN TEC AND THE ARMY BECAUSE TEC'S WORKLOAD HAD INCREASED SINCE IT INITIALLY BID.
IN OUR VIEW, TEC'S REQUEST FOR A PRICE INCREASE AND FOR A CHANCE TO NEGOTIATE THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE CONSTITUTES TEC'S REFUSAL TO KEEP ITS ORIGINAL BID AVAILABLE FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT MODIFICATION. SEE STEENMEYER CORPORATION, 61 COMP.GEN. 384 (1982), 82 1 CPD PARA. 445. BY INDICATING THAT IT WILL NO LONGER PERFORM THE WORK AT THE PRICE AND TERMS IT ORIGINALLY BID, TEC, IN EFFECT, HAS ABANDONED ITS ORIGINAL BID. IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING PRINCIPLES TO GIVE TEC A CHANCE TO SUBMIT A REVISED BID AFTER BID OPENING. SEE MILWAUKEE VALVE CO., INC., B-205937, JUNE 14, 1982, 82-1 CPD PARA. 575. THEREFORE, THE MERITS OF TEC'S PROTEST HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY OUR OFFICE RULING ON TEC'S PROTEST. STEENMEYER CORPORATION, 61 COMP.GEN. 384, SUPRA.