BNUMBER:  B-271344
DATE:  May 8, 1996
TITLE:  PBM Construction, Inc.

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

Matter of:PBM Construction, Inc.

File:     B-271344

Date:May 8, 1996

David J. Bader, Esq., Dillin & Bader, Inc., for the protester.
Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Justin P. Patterson, Esq., 
Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where facsimile bid modification was unacceptable because it was not 
authorized by the solicitation, agency determination to award on the 
basis of the unexpired original bid is unobjectionable. 
  
DECISION

PBM Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Dunton 
Construction Co., Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. FWS 
1-96-014 issued by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, for certain construction at the Coleman National Fish 
Hatchery, Anderson, California.  PBM contends that the agency 
improperly accepted the awardee's bid.

We deny the protest.  

Bid opening was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on February 6, 1996.  The IFB 
required  bidders to offer a 75-calendar-day government acceptance 
period and included the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
52.214-5, which provides in relevant part that "[f]acsimile bids, 
modifications, or withdrawals, will not be considered unless 
authorized by the solicitation."  The IFB did not contain such an 
authorization. 

The agency received Dunton's original bid of $491,796 on February 2.  
By facsimile transmitted on February 5, Dunton increased its bid by 
$42,700 to a total of $534,496.  PBM's bid was second low at $544,780.  
Both bidders agreed to offer a 75-day government acceptance period.  
On February 6, PBM filed a pre-award agency-level protest, asserting 
that because facsimile bid modifications were not allowed under the 
solicitation, Dunton's bid should be rejected.  

The contracting officer denied PBM's protest, stating that although 
facsimile bids were not authorized by the IFB, she had orally 
authorized facsimile bid modifications, as permitted under FAR  sec.  
14.202-7,[1] since "all contractors who inquired were told . . . they 
could fax a modification to their bid."  Of the 28 bids considered for 
award, ten were modified by facsimile.  By letter dated February 22, 
the agency made award to Dunton at the increased price of $534,496, 
whereupon PBM protested to our Office.

The rules regarding the acceptance of facsimile bid modifications are 
well settled: a facsimile bid modification must be rejected where the 
solicitation does not expressly authorize its submission.  See 
Michelin Aircraft Tire Corp., B-248498 et al., Aug. 31, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
142; G.D. Searle & Co., B-247077, Apr. 30, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  406; H. 
Bendzulla Contracting, B-246112, Nov. 8, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  441; Mabuhay 
Bldg. Maintenance Co., Inc., B-241908, Nov. 23, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  424.  
The government cannot orally modify an IFB to allow for receipt of 
facsimile bid modifications where the IFB prohibits their submission, 
because to do so may be prejudicial to the other bidders.[2]  G.D. 
Searle & Co., supra; see also Recreonics Corp., B-246339, Mar. 2, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  249; Auto-X Inc., B-241302.2, Feb. 6, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  
122.

Shortly after PBM filed its protest with our Office, the agency 
recognized that it was improper for the contracting officer to accept 
facsimile bid modifications under the IFB.  The agency reports that it 
has counseled the contracting officer that, 
while FAR  sec.  14.202-7 permits her to authorize facsimile transmissions, 
FAR  sec.  14.201-6(w) requires that she notify all bidders that facsimile 
transmissions will be
acceptable by inserting the FAR  sec.  52.214-31 clause into the 
solicitation.  In addition, the agency took corrective action by 
modifying Dunton's contract to reflect its original bid, i.e., 
imposing a price reduction of $42,700.  Dunton is currently performing 
the work in question at this reduced price.  

PBM responded by asserting that this corrective action is 
impermissible.  In PBM's view, protection of the integrity of the 
competitive bidding system requires the rejection of Dunton's bid 
because, when Dunton was told that its modified price was 
unacceptable, in effect it was given an improper opportunity to decide 
whether or not to be bound by its original bid.  The protester also 
takes the position that the agency's initial, albeit improper, 
acceptance of Dunton's modified bid somehow extinguished the agency's 
right to require Dunton to perform at the original bid price, because 
the agency knows that Dunton intended a higher price. 

In support of its position, PBM cites CCL, Inc., B-251527; B-251527.2, 
May 3, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  354, aff'd, B-251527.3, Sept. 17, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  178, in which our Office held that the award of a contract on 
the basis of an initial proposal was improper where the acceptance 
period for that offer had expired, the proposal had been modified 
during discussions, and the awardee had submitted a late best and 
final offer (BAFO).  In that case, however, there was no viable offer 
extant on the basis of which the agency could properly have made an 
award.  Under those circumstances, award on the basis of the initial 
offer was improper.  

In contrast, here, while the facsimile modification was unacceptable, 
by its own terms, the original bid remained available for acceptance 
for 75 days.  Bids on formally advertised or sealed bid procurements 
are required to be firm and are not subject to withdrawal, unless 
there is a bona fide mistake in bid.  Duro Paper Bag Mfg. Co., 65 
Comp. Gen. 186 (1986), 86-1 CPD  para.  6, aff'd, B-221377.2, Feb. 14, 1986, 
86-1 CPD  para.  165.  In this case, upon being advised that its 
modification was invalid, the awardee did not assert that the 
modification reflected the correction of any mistake; rather, it 
simply agreed to perform at its initial price.  Absent any evidence 
that a mistake had been made,[3] Dunton was bound by its initial bid, 
which the agency could not properly reject.  Id.  

As to PBM's contention that Dunton was given "two bites at the apple," 
as stated above Dunton was not given an opportunity to decide whether 
to be bound by its original bid--the bid was firm and was available 
for acceptance for 75 days.  While such a second opportunity is, in 
some sense, made available to bidders in alleged mistake situations, 
typically in those situations a bid may not remain in contention for 
award where the claimed correction is denied, id., and in payment 
Dunton never claimed a mistake in bid.  In these circumstances, we 
fail to see how acceptance of Dunton's bid could be considered 
detrimental to the integrity of  the competitive bidding system, and 
the agency's contract modification to reflect such an acceptance is 
unobjectionable.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. FAR  sec.  14.202-7, Facsimile Bids, provides that a contracting officer 
may authorize facsimile bids and cites FAR  sec.  14.201-6(w), which 
requires that the contracting officer insert the provision at FAR  sec.  
52.214-31 in the solicitation if facsimile bids or bid modifications 
are authorized.  FAR  sec.  52.214-31, among other things, defines a 
facsimile transmission, specifically states that facsimile 
transmissions will be acceptable under the solicitation, and provides 
a space for the contracting officer to insert the telephone number of 
the receiving facsimile equipment.  

2. The FAR prohibits the selected release of procurement information 
to only one bidder; that regulation provides that any information 
which is necessary in submitting bids, or the lack of which would be 
prejudicial to an uninformed bidder should be provided to all 
prospective bidders as a solicitation amendment. FAR  sec.  14.208(c).  
Information concerning the availability of facsimile transmissions is 
procurement information that must be provided to all bidders since 
facsimile communication confers the potential competitive advantage of 
more time for preparation and/or modification of bids.  See  G.D. 
Searle & Co., supra.

3. Aside from the fact that the awardee did not claim a mistake, 
nothing in the reconsideration suggests the reasonable possibility of 
a mistake in the awardee's bid.