BNUMBER:  B-274867
DATE:  November 12, 1996
TITLE:  AABLE Tank Services, Inc.

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

Matter of:AABLE Tank Services, Inc.

File:     B-274867

Date:November 12, 1996

Emmett Bonfield and Edwin J. Quinn for the protester.
James L. Weiner, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that "all or none" provision included on each of three 
separate bid schedules, one for base work and two for alternate work, 
contained in invitation for bids (IFB) precluded agency's awarding a 
contract to the lowest-priced bidder for the base work only without 
the IFB's two alternate work items is denied where the only reasonable 
interpretation of the IFB is that the "all or none" provision was 
applicable only to each schedule individually and that the contracting 
agency intended to award a contract for the base work and reserved the 
right to include one or both of the alternates work items in that 
contract depending upon whether the agency could afford the alternate 
work.  

DECISION

AABLE Tank Services, Inc. protests award of a contract to R.C.S. 
Construction, Inc. (RCS) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
FMAOO-1192, issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for removal 
and installation of fuel storage tanks at the Pine Ridge Indian 
Reservation in South Dakota.  The protester argues that it submitted 
the lowest-priced bid on the IFB's base and alternate schedules 
combined and, therefore, it should have been awarded the contract.

We deny the protest.

On August 15, 1996, BIA's Aberdeen area office issued the IFB for 
removing several underground storage tanks, testing for and removing 
contaminated soil around the tanks, and installing above-ground 
storage tanks.  The IFB sought bids for the base contract work and for 
two other items of work (designated Alternate #1 and Alternate #2) at 
three different locations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.  The 
IFB contained statements of work, specifications, and drawings for the 
base contract work and for each alternate work item.  The IFB also 
contained three separate bid schedules--entitled "Base Bid Schedule," 
"Alternate #1 Bid Schedule," and "Alternate #2 Bid Schedule"--on which 
prices were to be entered for the work  encompassed by that schedule.    

Eight bids were received by the September 11 bid opening.  The two 
lowest-priced bids--submitted by AABLE and RCS--contained prices for 
the base work and the alternate work items as follows:[1]

Offeror   Base Bid     Alternate #1       Alternate #2          Total

  RCS      $42,500.00      $56,950.00          $52,250.00      
$151,700.00

  AABLE   $50,849.60      $53,614.50          $44,682.00      
$149,146.10

On September 25, after ascertaining that BIA did not have sufficient 
funds to pay for having additional work performed under either 
Alternate #1 or Alternate #2, the contracting officer awarded RCS a 
contract for the base work only.  AAble protested to our Office 
shortly thereafter.

AABLE contends that it should have been awarded a contract because its 
bid was the lowest-priced for all three items of work combined.  AABLE 
points out that each bid schedule in the IFB contained a statement 
that award would be made on an "all or none" basis.  AABLE interprets 
the IFB's use of the term "all or none" as meaning that the agency 
would award a contract for all or any part of the work to the bidder 
who bid the lowest total price for all three items of work regardless 
of whether its bid was low on each bid schedule or on the work item 
awarded.  The agency responds that AABLE's interpretation of the IFB 
is not reasonable and that BIA properly awarded a contract for just 
the base work since it did not have enough money to pay for either of 
the alternate work items.

Offerors are expected to read the entire IFB in a reasonable manner.  
Innovative Technology Sys., Inc., B-260074, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
258.  Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of the IFB's terms, our 
Office will resolve the matter by reading the IFB as a whole and in a 
manner that gives effect to all of its provisions; to be reasonable, 
an interpretation of a solicitation's language must be consistent with 
the solicitation when read as a whole.  Id.; see also Datacomm 
Management Sciences, Inc., B-261089, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  259.  

As noted above, the IFB requested prices for doing the base work and 
for two alternate items of work.  The base work consisted of testing 
for and replacing contaminated soil, removing and disposing of three 
underground storage tanks with 8,000, 10,000, and 15,000 gallon 
capacities, and installing a new 1,000 gallon above-ground tank at a 
particular location on the Reservation.  The base bid schedule listed 
six line items of work that were included in the base job as follows:  
(1) test for contamination; (2) remove and dispose of storage tanks; 
(3) remove and dispose of contaminated soil; (4) backfill; (5) perform 
notifications and furnish reports; and (6) install a new above-ground 
tank.  The base bid schedule had a blank space next to each line item 
into which bidders were to insert their line-item prices and contained 
a space for inserting the total price for doing all of the work 
described in the base bid schedule.  The base bid schedule also stated 
that bidders were to insert their total price for the base work into 
the "amounts" block of Standard 
Form (SF) 1442, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award."  

Alternates #1 and #2 required the contractor to do the same type of 
work with different sized storage tanks at two different locations on 
the Reservation.  Accordingly, the bid schedules for Alternates #1 and 
#2 contained six line items that were virtually identical to those on 
the base bid schedule[2] and spaces for line item and total prices.  
Unlike the base bid schedule, the schedules for Alternates #1 and #2 
did not require bidders to carry their total prices over into the 
"amounts" block of standard for 1442.

At the bottom of each bid schedule, the IFB included the following 
statement:

     "Contract award will be made on the basis of "all or none."  
     Bidders must enter a bid figure for each line item listed on the 
     bid schedule, and enter their "total amount bid."  Failure to do 
     so will cause the bid to be disregarded."  [Emphasis in 
     original.]

In our opinion, the only reasonable interpretation of the IFB is that 
BIA intended to award a contract for all base work line items and 
reserved the right to include one or both of the alternates in that 
contract depending upon the bid prices received and whether the agency 
could afford the alternate work with the money it had available for 
this type of work.  The three separate bid schedules, with two of them 
identified as "alternate,' clearly indicated that BIA was soliciting 
bids for three separate tank removal and replacement jobs with the 
contract to encompass either the base work only or that work plus one 
or both alternates.  The fact that a bidder was required to insert its 
total price for the base work only into the "amounts" block of (SF) 
1442, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award," was a further indication that 
an award for the base work only was a possiblilty. 

The "all or none" language on which the protester relies clearly 
applies to the line items of each individual bid schedule and not to 
all three schedules collectively.  The sentence immediately following 
the "all or none" language, quoted above, specifically states that 
bidders must enter a price for each line item listed in that 
particular bid schedule, and the "all or none" provision was repeated 
at the bottom of each bid schedule; if the provision were intended to 
encompass all three bid schedules, there would have been no need to 
state the "all or none" provision three separate times.  Thus, by 
placing the "all or none language" in all three bid schedules, BIA 
simply indicated that it did not intend to award a contract to a 
bidder that bid on only some of the work within  a particular bid 
schedule.  

In short, AABLE's interpretation is inconsistent with the only 
reasonable interpretation of the IFB.  Since the IFB did not require 
award on the basis of all three schedules, the award to RCS, the low 
bidder for the base schedule, was proper and, indeed, consistent with 
the legal requirement that award be made on the basis of low price for 
the actual work awarded.  See, e.g. Rocky Ridge Contractors, Inc., 
B-224862, Dec. 19, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  691.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. As only RCS' and AABLE's bids are relevant, only they will be 
discussed in this decision.

2. In Alternates #1 and # 2, line item six differed slightly in that a 
larger above-ground  tank was required.