B-241567, Oct 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD 344

B-241567, Oct 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD 344

PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bids - Responsiveness - Ambiguous prices DIGEST: Bid was properly rejected where its total price was low but the sum of all the priced line items was not low. A bid must be rejected where it is susceptible of being interpreted as offering either of two prices and only one price is low.

Attorneys

Mechanical Service Systems, Inc.

Mechanical Service Systems, Inc. (MSS) protests the rejection of its bid submitted in response to invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAC89-90-B-0158, issued by the Army for furnishing and installing a replacement heating system in Building 1005 at Toole Army Depot, Utah. MSS contends that the Army improperly rejected its bid.

We dismiss the protest without obtaining an agency report from the Army since it is clear that the protest does not state a valid basis of protest. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1990).

The bid schedule in the IFB contained 12 line items which included such work as removing existing piping and asbestos insulation, installing the replacement system and furnishing spare drive belts, a pressure meter and a flow hood. Beside each of the line items were blanks for the insertion of unit and extended prices. At the bottom of the bid schedule there was a blank for the total bid price to be inserted.

MSS' bid listed a total price of $251,769. However, when the line items were totaled, the amount was $254,179, a difference of $2,410, which was the total amount MSS had inserted for line items 0001AG, 0001AH and 0001AJ. These three line items represented the spare drive belts, pressure meter and flow hood, respectively.

On August 30, 1990, the contracting officer pointed out the difference in the two prices and requested MSS to verify its bid. MSS replied that its intended bid price was $251,769 and that it had inserted a price next to the above listed line items for clarification and identification purposes only and did not intend to include those prices in its total bid price.

On September 18, the contracting officer rejected MSS' bid because it could be interpreted as offering either of two prices, only one of which would be the low bid submitted. Under these circumstances the agency pointed out that MSS' bid was not subject to correction because it would displace the $252,272 bid submitted by O&M Plumbing and Heating Company.

MSS contends that its bid should be accepted because it verified that its bid price was in fact $251,769 and did not request that it be corrected.

Where a bid is reasonably susceptible of being interpreted as offering either one of two prices shown on its face and only one of the prices is low, that bid must be rejected not-withstanding whether the bidder has claimed a mistake. Grove Roofing, Inc., B-233747, Feb. 23, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 196.

Here, the bid itself shows two prices, one of which is obtained by adding the line item bids and the other contained in the space provided for the total price. Only the price inserted as the total is low. While MSS states it only inserted the three line item prices for clarification, we do not see the bid schedule as asking for prices which are not to be included in the total bid. Since it is impossible to ascertain which of the two bid prices MSS intended from the bid itself (without explanation from the bidder) and the sum of all the line items, $254,179, is not the low bid, the contracting officer properly rejected it. See Virginia Beach Air Conditioning Corp., B-237172, Jan. 19, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 78.

The protest is dismissed.