BNUMBER:  B-275477
DATE:  February 24, 1997
TITLE:  Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.

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

Matter of:Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.

File:     B-275477

Date:February 24, 1997

Ronald J. Shaw, Esq., for the protester.
Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., and Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., East & Barnhill, 
for Port Enterprises, Inc., an intervenor.
Maj. Michael J. O'Farrell, Jr., and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, 
Department of the Army, 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

In a solicitation for a requirements contract, the agency reasonably 
rejected the apparent low bid as materially unbalanced where the bid 
included nominal prices for numerous line items and enhanced prices 
for other line items, and where uncertainty concerning the reliability 
of the solicitation's estimated quantities gave rise to a reasonable 
doubt that the unbalanced bid would actually represent the lowest 
price to the government.

DECISION

Alice Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. protests as improper the 
rejection of its bid as mathematically and materially unbalanced under 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. DADA18-96-D-0021, issued by the 
Department of the Army for roofing repair and replacement.     

We deny the protest.

The Army issued this solicitation on August 8, 1996, to furnish all 
plant, labor, equipment, and materials necessary to repair and replace 
roofing on miscellanous-type buildings at Fort Sam Houston, Camp 
Bullis, and Army Reserve Centers in San Antonio, Texas.  The bidder 
whose bid was most advantageous to the government, considering only 
price, would be awarded a fixed-price requirements contract for 1 base 
year and 1 option year.  Section B of the solicitation listed 105 
contract line items (CLIN) for each contract period, along with the 
agency's estimated quantities for each item.  Bidders were to supply a 
unit and extended price for each CLIN and a total price for each 
contract period.  Each bidder's overall price would be determined by 
multiplying the bid prices by the estimated quantities for each of the 
210 CLINs in the solicitation.  

The solicitation's CLINs were broken down by the types of tasks 
associated with repairing and replacing several different types of 
roofing systems.  Thus, for each contract period, the solicitation 
contained 16 CLINs for roof decking, sheathing, and framing systems; 9 
CLINs for removing and installing various roof insulation systems; 33 
CLINs for removing, repairing, and replacing various types of roofing 
systems; 26 CLINs for removing and replacing roof flashing systems; 20 
CLINs for miscellaneous roof accessories and items of work; and 1 CLIN 
for bonding.  

The Army received six bids at the following evaluated prices:

          Alice:         $3,588,340
          Cram Roofing:   3,750,514
          Port:           4,546,310
          Beldon Roofing: 4,960,822
          Rain King:      5,045,155
          A.D. Willis:    6,047,630

The contracting officer's review of the bids showed that Alice had 
submitted a unit price of 1 cent for each of 56 line items, raising 
the concern that the firm's bid might be unbalanced.[1]  However, the 
contracting officer's review of the firm's pricing led her to conclude 
otherwise, and she awarded the contract to Alice.  This action 
prompted Port to file a protest in our Office in which it argued that 
Alice's bid was unbalanced.  In preparing her response to that 
protest, the contracting officer reviewed Alice's bid again and 
concluded that it was indeed unbalanced, for the reasons discussed 
below.  The Army terminated Alice's contract on November 5 and awarded 
the contract to Port on November 7.  Port withdrew its protest.  

Alice filed the instant protest on November 15 challenging the 
decision that its bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced.  
The firm supplemented its protest with supporting information on 
November 18.[2]

An examination of bid unbalancing has two aspects.  Westbrook Indus., 
Inc., 71 Comp. Gen. 139 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  30.  First, the bid must be 
evaluated mathematically to determine whether each item carries its 
share of the cost of the work plus overhead and profit, or whether the 
bid is based on nominal prices for some work and enhanced prices for 
other work.  Id.  Unbalancing typically arises either between base 
period prices and option period prices or, in a requirements-contract 
solicitation such as this one, between line items for different goods 
or services.  Custom Envtl. Serv., Inc., B-252538, July 7, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  7.

If a bid is found to be mathematically unbalanced, it must be 
evaluated to determine the cost impact of the price skewing.  Where 
there is reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the 
mathematically unbalanced bid would result in the lowest ultimate cost 
to the government, the bid is materially unbalanced and may not be 
accepted.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.404-2(g); 
15.814; Westbrook Indus., Inc., supra.  

Turning first to the issue of mathematical unbalancing, Alice's 1-cent 
bids for 56 of the 210 CLINs are indisputably below cost and nominal.  
The question arises, then, whether Alice's prices for any other CLINs 
are enhanced.  The contracting officer compared Alice's prices with 
those submitted by the other bidders and the government estimate and 
determined that Alice had submitted enhanced pricing for five base 
period CLINs and their five option period counterparts.  The relevant 
base period CLINs concerned various types of built-up roofing, roll 
roofing, and modified bituminous roofing replacement, and their 
pricing was as follows:[3]  
                                
       Alice Cram  Port  Beldon  Rain  Willis  IGE

0011A  $430  $475  $195  $450    $165  $300    $225

0011B   595   500   220   455     215   700     225

0011C   100    65    55    50      30   125      16

0012    415   450   250   250     165   400     300

0013A   415   500   210   450     205   300     250
Alice argues that its prices are not enhanced because Cram, Willis, or 
Beldon submitted higher prices on one or more of these line items.  
However, a comparison of a competitor's prices with one's own prices 
does not by itself establish that one's prices are not enhanced, see 
David Boland, Inc., B-244817, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  397, 
particularly where, as here, the bid of one competitor (Cram) was 
rejected as unbalanced and the bid of another competitor (Willis) was 
the highest priced.  See Custom Envtl. Serv., Inc., supra.  Even if 
the third competitor's (Beldon's) pricing is used for the sake of 
comparison, Alice still submitted by far the highest prices on 6 of 
the 10 line items at issue.  More important, Alice does not dispute 
the agency's contention that its prices for these CLINs carry far more 
than their share of the cost of the work, plus overhead and profits, 
and thereby embody the very definition of enhanced pricing.  Westbrook 
Indus., Inc., supra.  Under the circumstances, we agree with the Army 
that Alice's bid contains enhanced prices and is, as a result, 
mathematically unbalanced.

Having made this determination, we turn to the question whether 
Alice's bid is materially unbalanced.  For unbalancing in requirements 
contracts such as this one, the accuracy of the solicitation estimates 
is critical, since the unbalanced bid will become less advantageous 
than it appears only if the government ultimately requires a greater 
quantity of the overpriced items and/or a lesser quantity of the 
underpriced ones.  Duramed Homecare, 71 Comp. Gen. 193 (1992), 92-1 
CPD  para.  126.  Where an agency has reason to believe that its actual 
needs may deviate significantly during performance from the 
solicitation estimates, it may reasonably view a mathematically 
unbalanced bid as not clearly representing the lowest cost to the 
government and therefore as materially unbalanced.  Beldon Roofing & 
Remodeling Co., B-253199; B-253199.2, Aug. 18, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  103.  

The contracting officer's determination that Alice's bid was 
materially unbalanced was premised upon the Army's belief that, given 
the inherent uncertainty of roofing estimates, its actual needs may 
deviate significantly from the solicitation's estimated quantities.  
The Army explains that it generates its estimates by using the list of 
facilities expected to require roofing work; calculating the square 
footage of those buildings; and using the square footage, age, and 
types of roofs involved to estimate the probable quantities of 
materials that will be needed for each building.  The agency totals 
these quantities and incorporates them into the solicitation as the 
estimated quantities.  Despite the fact that these are the Army's best 
estimates, the actual quantities ordered will depend upon such 
unpredictable variables as the availability of funding; the effect of 
potential storm damage on repairs to be made; and the impossibility of 
determining the exact roofing needs of a given building until the 
exterior of the roof is actually removed.  The Army states that this 
unpredictability is illustrated by the fact that the actual quantities 
ordered under the prior contract for roofing at these installations 
deviated significantly from the estimated quantities in the prior 
solicitation. 

Using this illustration to go one step further, the contracting 
officer multiplied the unit prices submitted by the three lowest 
bidders here by the actual quantities ordered under the prior contract 
to determine whether Alice's bid was materially unbalanced.  Her 
calculations showed that if the actual quantities ordered under the 
present contract tracked the actual quantities ordered under the prior 
contract, Alice's bid would not represent the lowest price to the 
government.  In particular, if the Army were to order more of a line 
item for which Alice's pricing was enhanced, as it had done in the 
past, there was reasonable doubt that the firm's bid would be the 
lowest priced.   

Alice objects that this calculation is unreasonable because the prior 
contract was "significantly larger" than the present contract, thereby 
skewing the results.  Alice contends that a more reasonable 
calculation would be one based upon the percentage by which the actual 
quantities ordered varied from the estimated quantities under the 
prior contract.  Relying on this calculation, Alice argues that its 
bid would be the lowest priced.

It may be appropriate in some cases to use the actual quantities 
ordered under a prior contract to gauge whether a bid under a future 
contract is materially unbalanced.  See Sanford Cooling, B-242423, 
Apr. 15, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  376.  This is not such a case.  The Army has 
made a persuasive showing, unrebutted by Alice, that the actual 
quantities ordered under a roofing contract are dependent upon wholly 
unpredictable and unique variables--the ability to issue delivery 
orders is affected by the availability of funding, and the need for 
and extent of roof repair and/or replacement is affected by potential 
storm damage and dictated by the latent condition of individual roofs.  
Given the very nature of these variables, the actual quantities 
ordered under the prior contract have no specific predictive value 
with respect to determining the actual quantities that will be ordered 
under the present solicitation.

However, this conclusion does not invalidate the premise underlying 
the Army's actions--that the divergence between the actual quantities 
ordered and the estimated quantities under the prior contract is 
evidence that this same divergence will occur under the present 
contract.  According to the Army, since the actual quantities ordered 
under a roofing contract bear no predictable or consistent 
relationship to the estimated quantities, its acceptance of Alice's 
mathematically unbalanced bid would require the Army to assume an 
unreasonable degree of risk that the mix of CLINs actually ordered 
will not exactly track the estimated quantities, thus resulting in the 
agency's paying more than if it had awarded the contract to a bidder 
submitting a bid in which each CLIN represented a fair share of the 
cost.  

The critical question in the determination of material unbalancing 
here is whether the actual mix of line items ordered will involve a 
mix different from that set forth in the IFB's estimates, which could 
lead to the agency ordering proportionately more of those CLINs for 
which Alice bid an enhanced price, and proportionately less of the 
CLINs for which Alice bid nominal prices.  If the mix of those CLINs 
is subject to significant variation, that variation creates reasonable 
doubt that Alice's bid will ultimately represent the lowest overall 
cost to the government.

In our view, the inherent uncertainty of roofing estimates means that 
the actual orders could vary significantly from the IFB's estimates, 
both with respect to the mix of CLINs and the quantities ordered.  As 
a result, the agency had a reasonable basis for doubting that Alice's 
mathematically unbalanced bid would ultimately represent the lowest 
cost to the agency.  Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co., supra; Custom 
Envtl Serv., Inc., supra; Outer Limb, Inc., B-244227, Sept. 16, 1991, 
91-2 CPD  para.  248.  Alice's arguments to the contrary are either centered 
around comparisons drawn between its bid and the actual ordered 
quantities under the prior contract, a methodology which makes no 
sense in this case, or purely speculative, and provide us no basis to 
object to the Army's determination.[4]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. This same concern arose in connection with Cram's bid, which was 
eventually rejected as unbalanced.  

2. We do not agree with Port's assertion that Alice's November 15 
protest should have been dismissed as lacking a valid basis, pursuant 
to Science Applications Int'l Corp., B-265607, Sept. 1, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  
99.  The allegations in that case were dismissed because they were 
either purely speculative or baseless on their face, circumstances not 
present here.  While Port objects to our advising Alice that it could 
supplement its protest on November 18, such advice was entirely 
consistent with our long-standing position that we will consider 
later-raised contentions that merely provide additional support for an 
earlier, timely raised objection.  Prospect Assocs., Inc., B-260696, 
July 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  53.  We also do not share Port's view that 
Alice was put on notice of the specific support for its allegations 
when the Army terminated its contract on November 5.  Port's prior 
protest notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Alice knew the 
precise basis for the agency's determination until November 7 at the 
earliest.  As a result, the firm's November 18 filing, filed 10 days 
later, would have been timely even if we had considered it to be a new 
and separate protest.  See Bid Protest Regulations, section 
21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).

3. Pricing for the option period line items differed only slightly, if 
at all, from the pricing for the base period line items.

4. Alice also seizes on the agency's specific use of the quantities 
actually ordered under the prior contract to argue that the present 
solicitation's estimated quantities are inaccurate.  The firm 
essentially contends that if the Army believed the actual quantities 
ordered under the prior contract would track those ordered under the 
present contract, the estimates do not reflect this belief.  The 
record is clear that the Army held no such belief, but made the 
calculations that it did in an effort to show that the estimates were 
inherently uncertain.