Coastal Carolina Land and Timber, LLC

Decision

Matter of: Coastal Carolina Land and Timber, LLC

File: B-422904

Date: December 11, 2024

DIGEST

Protester’s bid is nonresponsive because it failed to bid equal or higher than the minimum advertised rate for a particular species of timber as required by the solicitation.

Coastal Carolina Land and Timber LLC, of Beulaville, North Carolina, protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under solicitation No. 20006 conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the wild hog timber sale in Croatan National Forest in North Carolina. The protester contends that the agency improperly rejected its bid for having declined to bid the minimum advertised rate for a particular species of timber.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency advertised the timber sale in a local newspaper on August 1, 2024 and provided information about how to obtain the solicitation and other relevant information regarding the timber sale. Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, Newspaper Advertisement, at 18.[1] The solicitation called for sealed bids offering to purchase various species of government-owned timber within the Croatan National Forest, with a public bid opening at 1:00 p.m. local time on September 4, 2024. AR, Tab 8, Bid Form at 28. Minimum acceptable rates were set for each species; in this regard, bidders were instructed that “[t]he bid rates in column 14g for each species must be equal to or greater than the advertised rate for each species in column 14f.”[2] Id. at 31; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. For southern yellow pine sawtimber, the minimum acceptable rate was set at $49.00 per unit with an estimated quantity of 5,533 hundred cubic feet (ccf). AR, Tab 8, Bid Form at 25. For softwood-other pulpwood, the minimum acceptable rate was set at $24.31 per unit with an estimated quantity of 2,310 ccf. Id.

The agency received three sealed bids before the public opening on September 4. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 35. While Coastal Carolina was the apparent high bidder, the agency noted that it had bid only $15.28 per unit for the softwood-other species. See Id.; MOL at 3. Since this bid was below the minimum acceptable rate, the contracting officer rejected Coastal Carolina’s bid as nonresponsive and made award to Tri-State. Id. at 36. Another bidder similarly failed to meet the minimum acceptable rates for both the southern yellow pine and softwood-other sawtimber species and the agency rejected its bid as well. Id. at 35.

On September 5, the contracting officer, after consultation with the agency’s sale administration specialist, confirmed that Coastal Carolina submitted a nonresponsive bid, where Coastal Carolina’s bid was legible and did not appear to be a “Minor Informality, Clerical Error or a Material Mistake.” COS, exh. at 40 (attachment of email from Contracting Officer to Sale Administration Specialist). Tri-State was declared the high bidder and subsequently the agency issued an unsuccessful bidder notice to Coastal Carolina and informed the protester that it was found nonresponsive because it failed to conform to essential requirements, specifically that its bid of $15.28 per unit for softwood-other was less than the minimum advertised rate of $24.31. COS, exh. at 41 (notice dated September 5, 2024). In this regard, the protester failed to adhere to the bid instructions that bidders had to provide equal or greater pricing than the advertised prices on the bid form for each species. AR, Tab 8, Bid Form at 25. On September 6, Coastal Carolina filed its protest.[3] MOL at 3.

DISCUSSION

Coastal Carolina alleges that the agency improperly declared its bid nonresponsive. Coastal Carolina explains it was aware that its “bid had to reach the minimum of the entire sale, but [] forgot that they had to reach the minimum advertised price per product.” Id.; See Comments at 1-2. The protester admits its bidding mistake, but explains that “the market dictated $15.28” per ccf of softwood-other and describes the discrepancy as “inconsequential and immaterial.” The protester maintains that it bid “what the real world value is for softwood-other per ccf.” Protest; Comments at 1. Coastal Carolina requests that the agency accept its bid as-is based on “commonsense” and argues that no bidder will be displaced because its overall bid was the highest. Comments at 2.

The agency asserts, and the protester does not dispute, that Coastal Carolina did not comply with the solicitation requirement to provide an equal or greater price than the advertised rate for the softwood-other species. MOL at 3. The agency contends that it properly rejected Coastal Carolina’s bid as nonresponsive because the protester’s “intent to be bound . . . was not obvious and there was no clear and convincing evidence of a mistake.” MOL at 5. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.

To be responsive, a bid must constitute an unequivocal offer to perform the exact thing called for under the solicitation, such that acceptance of the bid will bind the contractor to perform in accordance with the material terms of the solicitation. New Shamut Timber Co., B-286881, Feb. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 42 at 2; Doug Jones Sawmill, B-239996, Sept. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 233 at 2.

In this case, the solicitation notified bidders of the requirement to provide minimum rates by species. By its own admission and in a post-bid opening explanation, Coastal Carolina asserts its mistake was a misunderstanding of the solicitation requirements. Coastal Carolina relies on our Office’s decision in Squires Timber Co., as precedent to find that the Forest Service should accept Coastal Carolina’s bid here, but we find this reliance unavailing. See Squires Timber Co., B-298859, Dec. 1, 2006, 2006 CPD ¶ 181. In Squires, the bidder had inadvertently failed to bid the minimum advertised price for one of the species in a timber sale, but explained it was a clerical error and that it intended to bid the minimum advertised price and should be permitted to correct its bid. Based on that record, our Office considered the mistake a “negligible” one that warranted correction. Id. at 2.

Here, by contrast, Coastal Carolina has not requested to correct a mathematical error, it instead intentionally provided a bid per unit that was based on the “market rate” and not the minimum rate advertised in the solicitation. Coastal Carolina has asked that the agency accept its bid “as submitted” without making any corrections since its bid price was still the highest overall. Comments at 1-2. Thus, unlike the protester in Squires, Coastal Carolina does not seek to correct any error and upwardly adjust its bid price for softwood-other to an amount that is equal to or greater than the minimum advertised price. Instead, Coastal Carolina requests that the agency accept its bid as is. On this record, because there is no clear evidence of a mistake, and Coastal Carolina has not explained that it meant to bid the minimum advertised rate, we find that the agency reasonably determined the bid to be nonresponsive. Therefore, we agree with the agency that Coastal Carolina’s bid must be rejected.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel