BNUMBER:  B-265782
DATE:  December 27, 1995
TITLE:  B-G Mechanical Service, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:B-G Mechanical Service, Inc.

File:     B-265782

Date:     December 27, 1995

Kevin F. Morin, Esq., Gordon, Muir and Foley, for the protester.
Scarlett D. Orenstein, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected bid as nonresponsive where statement included 
on the protester's bid schedule rendered the bid ambiguous as to 
price.

DECISION

B-G Mechanical Service, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid as 
nonresponsive and the award of a contract to All State Boiler Work, 
Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. GS-01P-95-BZC-0021, issued by 
the General Services Administration (GSA) to replace a cooling tower 
and to modify the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 
system at the federal building in New Haven, Connecticut.  GSA 
rejected the bid as nonresponsive because B-G's bid schedule included 
a statement which the agency concluded was inconsistent with the terms 
of the IFB.

We deny the protest.

When it was issued, the IFB sought lump-sum bids for all of the 
required work including the repair and replacement of thermostats and 
variable air volume (VAV) equipment.  The VAV work as described in the 
specifications and drawings requires the contractor to remove the 
ceilings in order to access the VAV equipment, then replace and repair 
the ceilings, as necessary.[1] 

Amendment 1 to the solicitation inserted a new pricing schedule which 
instructed bidders to submit unit prices for thermostats and VAVs in 
addition to a lump-sum bid.  Under the blank space for the lump-sum 
bid, the IFB included the caution:  "THE LUMP SUM BID SHALL NOT 
INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS FOR UNIT-PRICED ITEMS LISTED BELOW."  Under the 
unit-priced items, the amendment included blanks for four prices:  
thermostats and three types of VAVs, with estimated quantities 
specified for each.  The scope of work for thermostat replacement and 
VAV work was not changed by this amendment.  

GSA received eight bids; B-G submitted the low bid of $430,825.  B-G's 
bid included the following statement on its bid schedule, below the 
VAV unit prices:  "CEILING DEMO [demolition], REMOVAL & REPAIR NOT 
INCLUDED IN VAV TERMINAL UNIT PRICING."  By letter of June 20, the 
contracting officer requested an explanation of this statement to 
which the protester responded by letters dated June 23 and 28.  B-G 
explained that the firm "wanted to qualify what our pricing did not 
include" because the costs associated with VAV ceiling work were 
included in the firm's lump-sum price.  Nevertheless, the contracting 
officer concluded that the language inserted in the protester's bid 
excluded required ceiling work from the unit priced items and thus 
required rejection of the bid as nonresponsive.  GSA subsequently made 
award to All State, which had submitted the next lowest bid of 
$448,150.  This protest to our Office followed an agency-level protest 
which the contracting officer denied.

A bid must be responsive to be considered for award, which means that 
the bid must be an offer to perform, without exception, the exact 
thing called for in the solicitation and, upon acceptance, will bind 
the contractor to perform in accordance with the material terms and 
conditions of the IFB.  Stay, Inc., B-237073, Dec. 22, 1989, 89-2 CPD  
586.  Responsiveness is determined at the time of bid opening from the 
face of the bid documents.  Where a bidder provides information in its 
bid that modifies or takes exception to the IFB requirements, the bid 
must be rejected as nonresponsive.  Southwest Marine, Inc., B-247639, 
May 12, 1992, 92-1 CPD  442; Bishop Contractors, Inc., B-246526, Dec. 
17, 1991, 91-2 CPD  555.

The protester contends that its bid was responsive to the solicitation 
requirements and should not have been rejected.  According to B-G, the 
solicitation as originally issued and as amended did not require 
bidders to include ceiling demolition and repair costs in the VAV unit 
prices.  B-G maintains that the IFB description of the unit-priced 
line items did not include any reference to ceiling demolition or 
repair work, but rather simply required that those unit prices include 
the cost of the VAV equipment being replaced.  As a result, the 
protester insists that it properly included the costs for ceiling 
demolition and repair in the lump-sum portion of its bid.  According 
to the protester, inclusion of these costs in its lump-sum bid was 
consistent with the specifications, which called for ceiling 
demolition and repair work to be done in conjunction with the 
replacement and renovation of other HVAC system components, not just 
in conjunction with the VAV equipment.

We think the amended solicitation envisioned the unit prices as 
including the costs of all work associated with the repair and 
replacement of VAV equipment.  Attachment 2 of amendment 1 stated that 
unit prices were to include "all necessary material" and referred 
bidders "to individual Specification Sections for construction 
activities requiring the establishment of unit prices."  Specifically, 
section 02070 entitled "Selective Demolition," section 09200 entitled 
"Lath and Plaster," section 09510 entitled "Acoustical Ceilings" and 
section 09900 entitled "Painting," describe the construction 
activities required to repair and replace existing VAV equipment.    
Therefore, we think these references to "all necessary material" and 
"construction activities" reasonably reflect the agency's intention 
that the VAV unit prices were not to be limited to the cost of the VAV 
units.  We note in this regard that since the VAV terminals are 
physically located above ceilings in the federal building, it would be 
impossible for the contractor "to replace" those units without 
removing and replacing ceilings.  Thus, the cost "to replace" the 
existing VAV units logically would include all costs associated with 
replacing those units, including demolition, removal and repair.[2]

In any event, by including the statement on its bid schedule that 
these costs were excluded from its unit pricing for VAV work, B-G 
called into question whether it had, in fact, included these costs in 
its bid as submitted.  Under these circumstances, the agency properly 
could conclude that the protester's bid was ambiguous as to price and 
we therefore have no reason to question the rejection of B-G's bid as 
nonresponsive.[3]  See Wasteco Container Servs., Inc., B-240309,        
Nov. 7, 1990, 90-2 CPD  372.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. There are three types of ceilings in the building:  acoustical 
tile, concealed spline tile, and plaster ceilings.  Acoustical tile 
and concealed spline tile ceilings require removal and replacement to 
access the VAV equipment.  Plaster ceilings require selective 
demolition to gain access to equipment above the ceiling and patching 
and painting upon completion of work.   

2. As explained, amendment No. 1 cautioned that "THE LUMP SUM BID 
SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS FOR UNIT-PRICED ITEMS LISTED BELOW," 
indicating that bidders were not permitted to include under the 
lump-sum bid any work that was required to be priced under the 
unit-priced items.  Consequently, since, as we explained above, 
ceiling demolition, removal and repair were required to be included 
under the unit-priced items, contrary to B-G's assertion, ceiling 
demolition and repair could not be included under its lump-sum bid.

3. It is irrelevant that the contracting officer asked the protester 
to clarify its bid because a bidder is not permitted to clarify 
information affecting a material requirement after bid opening.  See 
Basil Equip. Corp., B-237335, Feb. 13, 1990,
90-1 CPD  187.