BNUMBER:  B-281042 
DATE:  December 7, 1998
TITLE: De Ralco, Inc., B-281042, December 7, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:De Ralco, Inc.

File:     B-281042

Date:December 7, 1998

Ralph W. Sepulvado for the protester.
Joan S. Ratliff, Esq., and Charlma J. Quarles, Esq., Department of 
Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Bidder's submission of prices for work to be deleted rather than 
prices for the work remaining after the deletion was responsive to 
solicitation requirement that bidders furnish prices for all line 
items, where the bidder's prices for the remaining work are readily 
ascertainable from the face of its bid.  Bid entry of prices for the 
work to be deleted was properly waived by agency as a minor 
informality which did not prejudice other bidders.  

DECISION

De Ralco, Inc. protests the award of a contract to J&B Construction 
Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 509-50-98, issued by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for renovating a wing of a mental 
health outpatient clinic.  De Ralco asserts that J&B's low bid should 
be rejected as nonresponsive because J&B's method of pricing the three 
deductive bid items was inconsistent with the solicitation 
requirements.

We deny the protest.

The IFB requested bids for the demolition and subsequent renovation of 
the F wing of the mental health outpatient clinic at the VA Medical 
Center in Augusta, Georgia.  It provided for a single award on a 
fixed-price basis, depending upon the funds available, and required 
bidders to submit prices for each bid item.  The IFB schedule included 
a line item for a base bid, representing the entire demolition and 
renovation effort, and three line items for "alternate deductive" 
bids.  The alternate deductive bid items Nos. 1 through 3 represent 
various deletions of the work, with each respective alternate 
deductive bid item deleting more of the work.  Alternate deductive bid 
item No. 3 incorporated the deletions made in alternate deductive bid 
item Nos. 1 and 2, and made one additional deletion in the work to be 
performed, which consisted of deleting a storefront window system and 
replacing it with a hollow metal frame system with wood doors and 
vision glass, per specifications.  IFB at IN-2.   
 
The VA received nine bids for the renovation project by the August 7, 
1998, bid opening.  The three low bids were as follows:

                        J&B        De Ralco   Bidder A

        Bid Item 1
        Base Bid        $872,460   $912,350   $928,754

        Alternate Deductive No. 1$9,505$899,550$917,754

        Alternate Deductive No. 2$15,045$887,000$894,422

        Alternate Deductive No. 3$26$887,000  $898,798
Abstract of Offers at 1, 3, 7a.

The agency understood J&B's alternate deductive entries to mean 
cumulative deductive amounts from the base bid, thus the bid was 
calculated as follows:

         Total for Bid Item 1 Base Bid $872,460

         Total for Alternate Deductive No. 1$862,955

         Total for Alternate Deductive No. 2$847,910

         Total for Alternate Deductive No. 3

of deductive amounts only, to confirm their bid prices.  These bidders 
confirmed their bids and indicated that the prices entered for 
alternate deductive bid items Nos. 1, 2, and 3 represent the cost of 
the deleted work for each item.  The contracting officer calculated 
each of these bidder's prices for the alternate bid items by deducting 
the prices for those items from the corresponding base bid, as reduced 
by any predecessor deductions.  The agency intends to make award to 
J&B.  De Ralco filed an agency level protest, dated August 12, 
protesting the award on the grounds that J&B's bid is nonresponsive 
because, under the alternate deductive line items, J&B improperly 
entered prices for the work to be deleted rather than the price of the 
work remaining after the deletion.  De Ralco contended that J&B failed 
to follow the IFB's instructions to submit a price on each bid item 
because J&B did not list the "complete bid" on each of the deductive 
alternates.  De Ralco Agency Protest at 2.  The agency denied De 
Ralco's agency level protest by letter dated September 2, and this 
protest to our Office alleging the same grounds followed.  

The agency position is that J&B's failure to insert the price of the 
work remaining after the deletion set forth in alternate deductive bid 
item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 did not render J&B's bid nonresponsive because 
the total amount of J&B's bid for these alternate deductive items was 
otherwise evident from J&B's submitted pricing schedule.  The 
contracting officer decided that this was a minor, waivable 
informality in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  
14.405.[1] 

The test for responsiveness is whether a bid offers to perform the 
exact thing called for in an IFB, so that acceptance of the bid will 
bind a bidder to perform in accordance with all of the terms and 
conditions of a solicitation without exception.  Randy Sabala; John 
Button, B-251221, 
B-251222, Nov. 24, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  379 at 2.   Here, we find J&B's 
bid was responsive to the solicitation, and the submission of prices 
for the work to be deleted rather than prices for the work remaining 
after the deletion was a waivable minor informality.  

As required by the IFB, J&B entered a price for each line item on the 
bid schedule thereby evidencing its intent to perform each line item 
requirement.  Because there is no doubt that J&B intended to be bound 
to its bid, J&B's failure to precisely follow the IFB's instructions 
to submit a dollar amount for the work remaining after the deletion 
set forth in alternate deductive bid item Nos. 1, 2, and 3 was 
properly waived by the contracting officer as a minor informality.  
While J&B did not follow the exact instructions of the IFB, it 
nevertheless provided prices for the work to be deleted in the 
corresponding bid schedule blanks for each alternate deductive bid 
item; thus, the amount of J&B's bid for the remaining work could be 
ascertained by simply deducting the dollar amount for the deleted work 
from the corresponding base bid, as reduced by predecessor 
deductions.[2]  Since J&B's deviation from the exact requirements of 
the IFB did not have a material effect on its legal obligations, it 
may be waived as a minor informality.  Fire Sec. Sys., Inc., B-259076, 
Mar. 2, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  124 at 4.

The protest is denied. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States      
 
$847,884August 7, 1998 Memorandum for the Record at 1.On the day of bid opening, the contracting officer contacted four bidders, including J&B, that had submitted alternate deductive bids in the form 

1. FAR  sec.  14.405 defines a minor informality or irregularity as: 

            [O]ne that is merely a matter of form and not of 
            substance[,] . . . some immaterial defect in a bid or 
            variation of a bid from the exact requirements of the 
            invitation that can be corrected or waived without being 
            prejudicial to other bidders.

2. De Ralco argues that J&B's bid should be found nonresponsive 
because there is an additional method to calculate J&B's bid that 
yields a different amount.  De Ralco Comments at 2, 3, Exhibit A.  
Specifically, De Ralco argues that each alternate deductive line item 
can be calculated by deducting the dollar amount for the deleted work 
from the initial base bid, instead of from the base bid as reduced by 
predecessor deductions, as calculated by the agency.  The protester's 
alternate calculation method ignores the fact that each subsequent 
alternative deductive bid item deletes more of the work. For example, 
alternate deductive bid item No. 3, described the requested work as, 
"[a]ll work included in Bid Item No. 1, Deductive Alternates Nos. 1 
and 2, except delete . . ."  IFB at IN-2.  It is not reasonable to 
calculate J&B's bid in the alternate manner described by De Ralco, as 
it is contrary to the obvious intention of the deductive sequence, as 
set forth in the IFB, and explained above.