BNUMBER:  B-276201 
DATE:  May 21, 1997
TITLE: J. Caldarera & Company, Inc., B-276201, May 21, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:J. Caldarera & Company, Inc.

File:     B-276201

Date:May 21, 1997

Paul G. Pastorek, Esq., and Sean D. Moore, Esq., Adams and Reese, LLP, 
for the protester.
Newton L. Klements, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where bidder provides in its bid conflicting information concerning 
its intention to be bound to the estimated quantities of sub-item 
which are subject to an equitable adjustment, the bid is ambiguous 
regarding whether the bidder intends to be bound to the original or 
amended estimate and was properly rejected.

DECISION

J. Caldarera & Company, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid as 
nonresponsive  under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW29-96-B-0055, 
issued for the construction of a bridge over the Davis Pond Diversion 
Channel at U.S. Highway 90 in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.  

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued on June 14, 1996, required the submission of lump-sum 
prices for some items and unit and extended prices based on estimated 
quantities for the majority of items.  After the issuance of various 
amendments, six bids were opened on December 17.  Caldarera's bid was 
low with a total price of $8,125,978.  Caldarera's bid was rejected as 
nonresponsive because Caldarera did not furnish with its bid its 
direct bond costs as required by the IFB for the evaluation of bids 
for the small disadvantaged business concerns preference.  The agency 
subsequently also determined that Caldarera's bid was ambiguous with 
respect to another material requirement concerning variations in 
quantities.  Caldarera protested the agency's determination.

To be responsive, a bid must show on its face at the time of bid 
opening that it is an unqualified offer to comply with all the 
material requirements of the solicitation and that the bidder intends 
to be bound by the government's terms as set forth in  the 
solicitation.  John P. Ingram, Jr. & Assocs., Inc., B-250548, Feb. 9, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  117 at 2.  If the bid is subject to more than one 
reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and must be rejected as 
nonresponsive under the rigid rules applicable to sealed bid 
procurements.  Sabreliner Corp., 64 Comp. 
Gen. 325, 328 (1985), 85-1 CPD  para.  280 at 4.

Of particular relevance here, the solicitation contained a "Variations 
in Estimated Quantities" clause which provided for an equitable 
adjustment in price or an extension of time on the three subdivided 
items in the IFB if it was discovered during contract performance that 
the actual quantity of materials required was at least 15 percent 
greater or less than the estimated quantity which was bid on.  
Amendment No. 0004 to the IFB changed the numbering of these items and 
increased the estimated quantities for one of the items.  Caldarera 
acknowledged the amendment, thereby agreeing to its terms.    However, 
it also submitted the original page 6 of the IFB.  Specifically, under 
the original IFB page 6, the subdivided item identified as bedding was 
originally subdivided into two subitems as follows:

Item No.     Description     Estimated
                             Quantity   Unit     Unit  PriceEst. Amt.

0044. Bedding                                       

         0044AA.First      1,470 CY     1,470   CY  

         0044AB.All Over 1,470 CY       500   CY    
On the amended bid schedule page which contained the renumbered item 
for bedding, the agency increased the estimated quantities to 2,600 
cubic yards and 1,000 cubic yards, respectively.  The estimated 
quantity is critical for determining when an equitable adjustment in 
price or an extension of time is warranted under the IFB's variations 
in estimated quantities clause.  By acknowledging the amendment, but 
including the unamended page 6, Caldarera created an ambiguity in its 
bid as to whether it was agreeing to the lower estimated quantities of 
the original IFB or the higher estimated quantities contained in the 
amendment for purposes of equitable adjustment.  Accordingly, we can 
only conclude that on its face Caldarera's bid is not a firm 
commitment to what the IFB envisions as the legal relationship between 
the parties under the variations in estimated quantities clause and is 
therefore nonresponsive.  Harvey Honore Constr. Co., Inc., B-262071.2, 
Jan. 31, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  30 at 3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States