TITLE:  Fire Security Systems, Inc., B-284147, February 23, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284147
DATE:  February 23, 2000
**********************************************************************
Fire Security Systems, Inc., B-284147, February 23, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Fire Security Systems, Inc.

File: B-284147

Date: February 23, 2000

Terrence M. O'Connor, Esq., for the protester.

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where an invitation for bids (IFB) soliciting bids for multiple line items
contains a clause that permits the government to accept any item or
combination of items in the bid, the agency has the discretion to make a
partial award unless the IFB elsewhere contains express language precluding
such an award.

DECISION

Fire Security Systems, Inc. protests receiving a partial award under
invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF23-99-B-0318, issued by the Department of
the Army, for upgrading a fire sprinkler system at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Fire Security contends that the terms of the IFB required the Army either to
award all line items of the IFB to a single bidder or to cancel the IFB.

We deny the protest.

The IFB schedule identified four separate line items of work. Item No. 0001
was to upgrade sprinkler systems at building 5207; item No. 0002 was to
upgrade sprinkler systems at building 5210; item No. 0003 was to upgrade
sprinkler systems at buildings 751 through 756; and item No. 0004 was to
install/repair fire appurtenances at buildings 5207 and 5210. Bidders were
required to insert separate lump-sum

prices for each line item and a "grand total" of the items. IFB Bid
Schedule. The bid schedule further stated:

In keeping with contract clause/provisions contained herein, Contract

Award-Sealed Bidding-Construction, a single award will be made to that
responsive, responsible bidder who submits the lowest total bid for all
contract line items.

The IFB also contained clause 52.214-19, "CONTRACT AWARD-SEALED
BIDDING-CONSTRUCTION," which stated:

  a. The Government . . . will award a contract to the responsible bidder
     whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to
     the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors
     specified elsewhere in the solicitation.
  b. . . . . .
  c. The Government may accept any item or combination of items, unless
     doing so is precluded by a restrictive limitation in the solicitation
     or the bid.

Three bids, including Fire Security's, were received by bid opening. The bid
whose "grand total" was low overall was rejected as nonresponsive because it
contained a defective bid bond. Fire Security's bid reflected the second
lowest "grand total" of $1,260,000, including prices of $580,000 for line
item No. 0001, $325,000 for line item No. 0002, $185,000 for line item No.
0003, and $170,000 for line item No. 0004. Fire Security's bid did not
specifically state that it was "all or none." Due to the unavailability of
funding, the Army awarded a contract to Fire Security only for line item No.
0003, for which item Fire Security offered the lowest price of the bids
received. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; Agency Report, Tab C.3,
Abstract of Offers. This protest followed.

Fire Security contends that the IFB provisions quoted above solicited bids
on an "all or none" basis, which precluded the Army from awarding a single
line item. While not disputing that the agency does not have sufficient
funds to award all of the line items, Fire Security argues that the Army may
only award a contract under the IFB for all of the line items or cancel the
solicitation and resolicit. Protest at 2.

Where, as here, an IFB allows an agency to accept any item or combination of
items, it has the discretion to make an award of less than all of the line
items, unless the IFB contains express language precluding such an award.
See Talbott Dev. Corp., B-220641. Feb. 11, 1986, 86-1 CPD para. 152 at 2;
Granite State Mach. Co., Inc., B-199644, Nov. 26, 1980, 80-2 CPD para. 396 at 5.
The provision on the IFB schedule indicating that a single award would be
made to the bidder who submitted the lowest total bid for all line items
does not expressly preclude the agency from making a partial award to the
low bidder on a single item, which right was expressly reserved to the
government under the IFB by FAR sect. 52.214-19. Contrary to the protester's
argument, the IFB schedule does not promise an award of all items to a
single bidder. We therefore conclude that the IFB terms gave the agency
right to award less than all line items. Since the Army lacked funding and
Fire Security did not otherwise specify that its bid could only be accepted
on an "all or none" basis, we see no basis to object to the agency's
decision to make a partial award. See Alcon Div. of Boyles Bros. Drilling
Co., B-241058, 91-1 CPD para. 46 at 2-3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States