BNUMBER:  B-271740
DATE:  July 22, 1996
TITLE:  Fire Security Systems, Inc.

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

Matter of:Fire Security Systems, Inc.

File:     B-271740

Date:July 22, 1996

John M. Frazier, Esq., Peatross, Greer & Frazier, and W. R. Hayes, for 
the protester.
Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., George N. Brezna, Esq., and Marilyn 
Walter  
Johnson, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly accepted a bid which, while it included a 
nonresponsive alternate option, also constituted an offer that did not 
take exception to any solicitation requirement and was not susceptible 
to more than one reasonable interpretation.

DECISION

Fire Security Systems, Inc. protests the proposed award of a contract 
to Lima Fire Equipment Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N62467-95-B-1106, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, for an automatic fire sprinkler 
protection system for the Naval Hospital NTTC Corry Station, Naval Air 
Station, Pensacola, Florida.  Fire Security asserts that Lima's bid 
should be rejected because it was ambiguous.

We deny the protest.

The Navy issued the solicitation on January 31, 1996.  The bid form 
required the entry of prices for two items, the base bid and one 
option, with award to be made to the bidder offering the lowest total 
price.  The IFB provided that for "sprinkler piping" the industry 
standards set forth in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 
and NFPA 14 would apply "except as modified herein."  Under the 
conditions outlined in the solicitation, NFPA 13 specifies that the 
pressure limitations and the minimum wall thicknesses for 5-inch, 
6-inch and 8 to 10-inch steel pipe shall be in accordance with 
Schedule 10 pipe.  However, the same section of the IFB goes on to 
state that "Steel piping shall be Schedule 40 for sizes less than 8 
inches, and Schedule 30 or 40 for sizes 8 inches and larger."  Thus, 
while the reference of NFPA allows for Schedule 10 steel pipe for 
certain of the specified sizes, the IFB modifies the requirement to 
Schedule 30 or Schedule 40 steel pipe for those sizes.  

By facsimile dated February 2, Wolverine Fire Protection Company, a 
Lima subcontractor, requested clarification of the specification, 
asking if Schedule 
10 piping could be used per NFPA 13.  The agency did not respond to 
this inquiry.  

Bid opening was March 28.  Six bids were submitted.  Lima's bid was as 
follows:

"Item 1, Base Bid:                                                
                                $1,064,000.00

Item 2, Option Item 0001:                                               
                                $6,000.00

DEDUCT FOR SCHEDULE 10 PIPE                                           
                                $10,000.00"
Lima's total bid of $1,070,000 was low; Fire Security submitted a bid 
of $1,217,500 which was second low.  

Fire Security asserts that Lima's bid is ambiguous.  Specifically, 
Fire Security argues that the language "Deduct for Schedule 10 pipe 
$10,000.00" can either be interpreted to mean that the agency has the 
option of deducting $10,000 from Lima's bid price if the agency 
decides to use Schedule 10 pipe or that the bid has already been 
reduced $10,000 because Fire Security offered Schedule 10 pipe.  Fire 
Security concludes that since it is impossible to know if Lima offered 
in its bid to meet the specifications of the IFB and what Lima 
actually intended to bid, the Navy must reject Lima's bid as ambiguous 
and award the contract to Fire Security.  

The Navy's view is that there is no ambiguity in Lima's bid, and that 
the notation which Lima wrote on its bid means simply that, if the 
Navy would permit Lima to substitute Schedule 10 pipe, Lima would 
deduct $10,000 from the entered price.  The Navy takes the position 
that while the notation provides an alternate which Lima has made 
available, Lima's primary bid does not modify or take exception to the 
requirements of the solicitation.

Generally, an ambiguity in a bid exists where it is subject to two 
reasonable interpretations.  High Country Equip., Inc., B-242669, Apr. 
19, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  392.  An item in a bid that has more than one 
possible interpretation does not render a bid ambiguous if the 
application of reason serves to remove the doubt, leaving only one 
reasonable interpretation of the bid.  Blueridge Gen., Inc., 71 Comp. 
Gen. 271 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  218; 51 Comp. Gen. 831 (1972). 

Here, the only reasonable interpretation of Lima's bid notation is 
that it represents an alternate bid at a reduced price if the 
government elected to accept Schedule 
10 pipe.[1]  The IFB clearly modified the referenced industry 
standards to require either Schedule 30 or Schedule 40 pipe, and 
Lima's price entries for the base and option items do not take any 
exception to this requirement.  In view of the unanswered inquiry as 
to the possible use of the superseded industry standard of Schedule 10 
pipe, the only reasonable interpretation of the additional price entry 
is that while Lima offered to provide Schedule 30 or Schedule 40 pipe 
at its base bid of $1,064,000, it was also providing an alternate 
offer to supply Schedule 10 pipe at a reduced price should the agency 
elect to permit Schedule 10 pipe.  Because Lima unequivocally offered 
to provide the requested Schedule 30 or Schedule 40 pipe in total 
conformance with the requirements specified in the IFB, its bid is 
responsive and was properly accepted by the Navy.[2]

Fire Security's argument that Lima's bid could reasonably be 
interpreted as offering only Schedule 10 pipe at a $10,000 reduction 
is not logical.  If Lima were offering Schedule 10 pipe the "deduct" 
notation would be unnecessary, or logically would have been stated in 
the form $10,000 had been "deducted."  Fire Security's proffered 
interpretation which would render the bid nonresponsive calls for a 
strained and implausible application of an entry which, in context, 
simply offers an alternate in addition to a clearly responsive bid.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Bidders are not prohibited from submitting an alternate bid, even 
if the IFB does not explicitly authorize the submission of alternate 
bids.  Edling Elec., Inc., B-231593, Aug. 10, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  128.  

2. Where, as here, a bidder submits a bid containing two offers, one 
which meets the specifications and the other which does not, the 
government is not precluded from accepting that offer which meets the 
specifications.  Sidings Unlimited, 65 Comp. Gen. 130 (1985), 85-2 CPD  para.  
686.