BNUMBER:  B-266354
DATE:  January 29, 1996
TITLE:  BFI Medical Waste Services

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

Matter of:BFI Medical Waste Services

File:     B-266354

Date:     January 29, 1996

Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq., and Ross W. 
Dembling, Esq., Holland & Knight, for the protester.
Garrett L. Ressing, Esq., and Cynthia Guill, Esq., Department of the 
Navy, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

When a bidder does not bid based on the precise quantity, measurement, 
or volume called for in the invitation for bids, the bid must be 
rejected as nonresponsive unless the intended price for the proper 
quantity, measurement, or volume can be determined from the face of 
the bid or the effect of the deficiency on the price of the bid is 
clearly de minimis and waiver would not be prejudicial to other 
bidders. 

DECISION

BFI Medical Waste Services protests the rejection of its bid as 
nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N68925-95-B-A498, 
issued by the Department of the Navy for medical waste removal and 
disposal services at various medical facilities within the 
jurisdiction of the Navy Public Works Center in Washington, D.C.  

We deny the protest.

The IFB contemplated the award of a combination fixed-price/indefinite 
quantity contract for the pickup and disposal of medical waste and 
replacement containers at numerous specified medical facilities.  
Contract line item (CLIN) No. 0001 comprised the fixed-price portion 
of the contract, and CLIN No. 0002 comprised the indefinite quantity 
portion of the contract, for scheduled and unscheduled pickup and 
disposal of medical waste, respectively.  Each CLIN consisted of two 
sub-line items, one for medical waste to be incinerated, and one for 
medical waste to be sterilized.  Bids were requested on an "all or 
none" basis.  

Section B of the solicitation contained two pricing schedules, one for 
each CLIN and its respective sub-line items.  For each sub-line item, 
the schedules listed a maximum quantity of medical waste, using pounds 
as the unit of measure.  In accordance with section B.2, bidders were 
required to enter unit and extended prices for each sub-line item, as 
well as a total price for each CLIN and a total price for both CLINs.  
Section M.2.a. of the IFB informed bidders that the failure to submit 
a bid for all items and quantities listed would cause rejection of the 
bid.       
The Navy received four bids, including one from BFI.  The section B 
pricing schedule in BFI's bid listed a total price for CLIN No. 0001 
and a total price for both CLINs in the spaces reserved for such 
prices.  However, the firm did not insert unit or extended pricing for 
any of the sub-line items or the total price for CLIN No. 0002.  
Instead, in the spaces reserved for such pricing, BFI had typed "**SEE 
PRICING SCHEDULE**".  A separate pricing schedule, attached to BFI's 
bid, listed each of the medical facilities covered by the IFB, along 
with corresponding entries under three columns:  rate, number of boxes 
per year, and extended dollar amount.

Although BFI's total price for both CLINs was apparently the lowest 
received,[1] the Navy rejected the firm's bid as nonresponsive because 
it did not complete the pricing schedules in section B and the 
information in its separate pricing schedule did not clearly indicate 
whether the firm intended to bid for each item, and because BFI's 
pricing schedule put into question what the firm intended to bid for 
each item.[2]  BFI contends that its pricing schedules contained 
sufficient information for the Navy to determine that BFI bid on all 
of the requirements and the prices it intended to bid.

To be responsive, a bid must represent an unequivocal offer to provide 
the exact thing called for in the solicitation such that acceptance of 
the bid will bind the contractor to perform in accordance with all of 
the solicitation's material terms and conditions.  J.C. Adams, Inc., 
B-252132, May 18, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  394.   A bid also must be rejected 
as nonresponsive if it is ambiguous regarding the actual price the 
government would be obligated to pay upon acceptance of the bid.  
Municipal Leasing Sys., Inc., B-242648, B-242648.2, May 21, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  495.  When a bidder does not bid based on the precise quantity, 
measurement, or volume called for in the IFB, the bid must be rejected 
as nonresponsive unless the intended price for the proper quantity, 
measurement, or volume can be determined from the face of the bid, 
Hooven Allison--Recon., B-224785.2, Mar. 6, 1987, 87-1 CPD 
 para.  257; Tabco Prods., Inc., B-222632, Aug. 27, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  231, or 
the effect of the deficiency on the price of the bid is clearly de 
minimis, and waiver would not be prejudicial to other bidders.  Hooven 
Allison--Recon., supra.  

Here, even assuming that the information in BFI's bid was sufficient 
to show its intent to be bound to perform, its pricing schedule 
introduces an ambiguity as to price, requiring its rejection as 
nonresponsive.  While the solicitation expressly notified bidders that 
prices were being solicited on a per pound basis, BFI's bid did not 
provide prices on a per pound basis.  

BFI argues that its per pound price for each CLIN can be calculated by 
simply dividing each total CLIN price identified in its bid by the sum 
of the total estimated pounds for the two sub-line items.  However, 
BFI's bid expressly referenced its own attached pricing schedule 
instead of including the requested sub-line prices on a per pound 
basis for each sub-line item, and this pricing schedule--which 
contains separate rates for each site--does not use pounds as its 
unit, but boxes, thus preventing the Navy from determining whether BFI 
was bidding on the precise quantity in pounds called for in the 
IFB.[3]   Therefore, we do not agree that BFI's intended sub-line 
items pricing can be calculated in the manner now argued by BFI.[4]  

Alternatively, BFI asserts that its intended per pound unit prices for 
the sub-line items can be calculated from its attached pricing 
schedule, which BFI claims clearly defines a box as containing an 
average of 20 pounds of waste, thereby allowing for a straightforward 
conversion from the quoted per box unit price prices into per pound 
unit prices.  We disagree.  

Of the 25 locations listed on the pricing schedule, only one--Sugar 
Grove--is followed by an asterisk.  The bottom of the schedule 
contains three asterisked sentences:  "*Sugar Grove location will be 
serviced through BFI's 5 gallon container mail disposal service 
program"; "*Ground service is available for this location at an 
increased rate"; and "*Rates based on an average of 20 pounds per 
container over a month's time."  While BFI argues that this last 
sentence defines the poundage contained in all of the boxes on the 
schedule, we see no reason to infer that these asterisked sentences 
apply to any location except Sugar Grove, the one asterisked location.  
See Williams and Lane, Inc., 63 Comp. Gen. 23 (1983), 83-2 CPD  para.  482.  
Indeed, since the Sugar Grove location is to be serviced through BFI's 
5 gallon mail disposal service program, it would seem most probable 
that the 20-pound average referred to here applies only to this 
container.  At a minimum, the schedule makes it ambiguous whether all 
boxes for all locations contain 20 pounds, and this prevents a 
conversion of BFI's pricing into a unit which would allow evaluation 
of all bidders on a common basis.  Hooven Allison--Recon., supra; cf. 
Artisan Builders, 65 Comp. Gen. 240 (1986), 86-1 CPD  para.  85 (where 
square foot unit prices were readily convertible to required linear 
foot unit prices).[5]  In view of BFI's failure to bid based on the 
unit of measure specified in the IFB, and our resulting inability to 
conclude that the failure had a de minimis effect on its price, we 
conclude that BFI's bid was nonresponsive.  Hooven Allison--Recon., 
supra; Tabco Prods., Inc., supra; see J.D. Bertolini Indus., Ltd., 
B-231598, Sept. 14, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  245. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. BFI's total price for both CLINs was $278,185, and the second low 
bidder's was $311,373.

2. The Navy also rejected BFI's bid as nonresponsive because the firm 
attached an addendum allegedly taking exception to the IFB's economic 
price adjustment clause.  Because we find that the Navy properly 
rejected BFI's bid as nonresponsive on the basis of its pricing 
schedule, we need not decide whether this addendum also rendered the 
bid nonresponsive.

3. We note that while the unit of measure column is labeled boxes per 
year, the rate column lists rates per pound for four locations with no 
explanation as to whether the numbers in the boxes per year column for 
those locations refer to boxes or pounds, introducing yet another 
ambiguity.

4. While BFI has submitted its worksheets to explain its intentions 
here, to permit a bidder to explain its bid after bid opening would be 
tantamount to improperly allowing a bidder to have the unfair 
competitive advantage of choosing to accept or reject the contracts 
after bids were exposed.  B&C Indus., Inc., B-244471.4, Oct. 7, 1991, 
91-2 CPD  para.  314.

5. In addition, the final sentence on BFI's pricing schedule (just 
below the three asterisked sentences) states that, "Failure to meet 
such minimums may subject the customer to an additional charge."  This 
sentence, which appears to refer to the Sugar Grove location, clearly 
states that BFI might charge the Navy an undefined amount over and 
above what it has bid under certain conditions.