BNUMBER:  B-272399
DATE:  October 3, 1996
TITLE:  Insituform East, Inc.

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

Matter of:Insituform East, Inc.

File:     B-272399

Date:October 3, 1996

Michael J. Hogan, Esq., Witte, Lestz & Hogan, P.C., for the protester.
Diane D. Hayden, Esq., Brian H. Wood, Esq., and Patrick J. Coll, Esq., 
Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Specification for sewer rehabilitation services which references an 
American Society for Testing and Materials standard dealing with the 
inversion method of sewer liner installation does not preclude the use 
of other installation methods.

DECISION

Insituform East, Inc. protests the alleged modification to contract 
No. 00187-94-D-8197, awarded by the Department of the Navy to Video 
Pipe Services, Inc. (VPSI) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N62470-94-B-8197 for sewer rehabilitation services at various Navy 
installations in the Norfolk, Virginia area.  Insituform contends that 
the contract requires use of the inversion installation method, but 
that the Navy is allowing VPSI to use a winching installation 
method.[1]  By so doing, Insituform argues, the Navy has modified the 
contract beyond the scope of the contract initially awarded.

We deny the protest.

Because a contract modification that goes beyond the scope of the 
contract is tantamount to a sole source award that may not be 
justified, we will review a protest challenging a contract 
modification where the allegation is that a modification is beyond the 
contract's scope and therefore should be the subject of a new 
procurement.  See Rolm Corp., B-218949, Aug. 22, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  212; 
Webcraft Packaging, Div. of Beatrice Foods Co., B-194087, Aug. 14, 
1979, 79-2 CPD  para.  120.

Here, the Navy has not issued an actual modification to the contract; 
it is simply permitting an installation method allegedly precluded by 
the specifications.  The Navy argues that this case cannot involve an 
out-of-scope modification because the specifications permit the 
installation approach taken by the contractor.  We agree.

Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation 
requirement, we will resolve the dispute by reading the solicitation 
as a whole, and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the 
solicitation.  Energy Maintenance Corp., B-223328, Aug. 27, 1986, 86-2 
CPD  para.  234.  Moreover, given the fundamental requirement for the use of 
specifications that permit full and open competition, 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2305(a) (1994), we will not read specifications restrictively unless 
it is clear from the solicitation that the agency intended such an 
interpretation.  Concrete Sys., Inc., B-259283, Mar. 22, 1995, 95-1 
CPD  para.  158; Ampex Data Sys. Corp., B-248112, July 30, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  
71.

The dispute here arises in connection with the following provision in 
specification section 02740, entitled "Rehabilitation of Sewer Lines 
(Cured-In-Place Method)":

     "PART 1 General

     1.1REFERENCES

     All work must meet the following and will form a part of this 
     specification to the extent referenced.

     1.1.1 American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM]

     ASTM F1216-91 Standard Practice for Rehabilitation of Existing 
     Pipelines  and Conduits by the Inversion Curing of a 
     Resin-Impregnated Tube.

     1.1.2 National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO)."

The protester points to the language in part 1.1 immediately preceding 
the reference to ASTM F1216-91:  "All work must meet the following and 
will form a part of the specification to the extent referenced."  The 
protester contends that since the ASTM provision is listed--or 
"referenced"--all work must be in accordance with it, and since the 
provision deals only with the inversion method, that method is the 
sole permissible method of installation.  As explained below, while we 
think that the agency could have expressed its intention to permit all 
types of installation methods more clearly, on balance, we cannot 
conclude that the IFB should be read in the restrictive manner 
Insituform suggests.

First, ASTM F1216-91 does not itself mandate use of the inversion 
method; it simply sets out a standard practice to be followed when a 
contractor decides to perform sewer rehabilitation using an inversion 
installation method.  Further, except for the listing in part 1.1 
quoted above, there is no other reference to the ASTM or the inversion 
method in the contract; on the contrary, under the section entitled 
"Liner Installation," the specification states only that the 
contractor is to "follow the manufacturer's directions."[2]  Moreover, 
part 1.1 includes a general reference to NASSCO, an industry group 
which publishes a number of manuals on sewer rehabilitation; although 
these manuals contain information about the inversion method, they 
also set out guidelines for the winching method of installation, 
suggesting that alternate installation methods were contemplated.  In 
our view, unless there is explicit language in the specifications 
stating that all provisions of referenced standards must be followed, 
the proper interpretation is that the provisions of the standards 
apply only to the work intended to be encompassed by the standards 
rather than to all contract requirements.[3]  See Claude E. Atkins 
Enters., Inc., B-205129, June 8, 1982, 82-1 CPD  para.  553.  Accordingly, 
we think the specification reference to the ASTM standard, reasonably 
read, means only that the use of the inversion method must be 
consistent with the standard, not that the inversion method must be 
used.

That being so, we cannot agree with the protester's contention that 
the agency improperly modified the contract beyond its original scope 
by allowing VPSI to use other than the inversion method of 
installation. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The inversion method involves inverting a resin-impregnated 
flexible liner into a sewer cavity using water or air pressure; this 
procedure resembles a sock being pulled inside out.  The winching 
installation method requires dragging the liner into place using a 
guide wire which is inserted through a manhole opening at the end of 
the sewer cavity.

2. This is in contrast to prior contracts for these services, which 
specifically referenced the inversion method in the technical 
specifications when the agency intended to require it.  

3. We recognize that in response to an earlier Insituform protest 
challenging award to VPSI, the Navy provided a certification from VPSI 
that the firm would use the inversion method.  At the hearing on the 
protest, the agency stated that it provided the certification as the 
most direct response to Insituform's contention that VPSI did not 
intend to use the inversion method; the agency also testified that it 
was not the Navy's intention to require bidders to use the inversion 
method.