A firm protested the rejection of its bid under a Navy solicitation for guard services, contending that: (1) it did not make a mistake in its bid, as the Navy alleged; and (2) certain solicitation specifications were ambiguous. The Navy questioned the bid price because it was substantially lower than the government estimate. The protester claimed that, while the bid was not mistaken, it did not account for vacation costs during 2 possible option years because the solicitation provided for price adjustments pursuant to revised wage and benefit determinations. GAO held that: (1) the protester erroneously assumed that a contractor would be entitled to a price adjustment, because the incorporated wage determination, which required vacation benefits, was to remain in effect through any option years; (2) the Navy properly determined that the bid was mistaken and rejected it; (3) the protester did not demonstrate that there was only one reasonable interpretation of certain allegedly ambiguous specifications; (4) the protester did not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by any of the alleged solicitation ambiguities; and (5) certain portions of the protest relating to the solicitation specifications were untimely filed because they were not received by GAO before bid opening. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.
Skip to Highlights