TITLE:  Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems, Ltd., B-286488, January 17, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-286488
DATE:  January 17, 2001
**********************************************************************
Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems, Ltd., B-286488, January 17, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems, Ltd.

File: B-286488

Date: January 17, 2001

Yvan Miklin for the protester.

Thomas A. Mascolino, Esq., and Tina Perruzzi, Esq., Department of Labor, for
the agency.

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. A bid that is based upon the incorrect premise that only three full-time
and two part-time positions were required under a solicitation for services
where the invitation for bids clearly requires five full-time positions may
not be corrected.

2. Protest is sustained, even though the agency properly rejected the
protester's low bid due to a mistake in bid, where it then made award to a
higher-priced bidder whose bid contained the same mistake, notwithstanding
that the higher-priced bidder submitted worksheets to the agency, prior to
award in response to the agency's request for bid verification, that clearly
evidenced the mistake, and then after award raised the contract price to
account for this mistake.

DECISION

Aquila Fitness Consulting Systems, Inc. protests the agency's refusal to
accept its modified bid and the award of a contract to FMF Corporation,
under invitation for bids (IFB) No. J4R12001, issued by the Department of
Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), for fitness/wellness
services.

We deny the protest in part and sustain it in part.

The agency issued the IFB on August 7, 2000 to assist in operating the
Wellness Program at the MSHA Academy in Beckley, West Virginia, for a base
year with 4 option years. Although the statement of work contained in the
IFB did not state how many individuals were required to perform the contract
work, the IFB elsewhere (on the Standard Form (SF) 98a, Notice of Intention
to Make a Service Contract and Response to Notice) advised bidders that five
positions were to be used in the performance of the contract, and that these
positions were covered by the Service Contract Act and were full-time. RFP
at 52. Amendment No. 1, issued on August 11, modified the titles of these
positions and again specifically indicated that these five positions were
full-time. [1] Amendment No. 2, issued on August 22, contained questions
posed by potential bidders and agency responses, including the following:

Amendment [No. 1] . . . indicates that there are 5 full time positions to be
employed on contract. . . . The statement work . . . indicates only
1 fitness director, 1 fitness aide and 1 lifeguard. Which one is correct?

Amendment #1 overrides original page 52, indicating five (5) full-time
employees.

Thus, the IFB unambiguously provided that five full-time positions were
required. [2]

Seven bids were submitted by bid opening on September 6. The protester
submitted the apparent low bid at $426,671.88 and FMF submitted the fourth
low bid at $566,644. The agency asked the four lowest bidders, including
Aquila and FMF, to verify their bids. Both Aquila and FMF provided
worksheets supporting their bid prices. Upon reviewing Aquila's worksheets,
the contracting officer determined that Aquila's bid price was based on
three full-time positions and two part-time positions, instead of the five
full-time positions required by the IFB. Agency Report at 1. The agency
immediately advised Aquila of this determination and, later that same day,
Aquila submitted an amended bid that increased its bid price to $473,637 for
the 5-year term to include the cost for five full-time positions. Agency
Report, Tab 7, Aquila Bid Revision. The agency rejected Aquila's bid as
nonresponsive and made award to FMF. [3]

Sometime after award had been made, the agency noticed that FMF's worksheets
evidenced that that firm had made the identical mistake that Aquila had
made, namely that its bid provided for two part-time positions and three
full-time positions, instead of the five full-time positions required by the
IFB. The contracting officer decided to "reform" FMF's contract by issuing a
contract modification in the amount of $24,500 increasing FMF's contract
price to provide the required five full-time positions for the base year.
[4] Agency Report at 2.

Aquila protests that the agency should have accepted its request to amend
its bid. This request was in effect a request that its bid be corrected
based upon a claimed mistake in bid pursuant to Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) sect. 14.407. However, correction of a claimed mistake in bid
is not permitted where the alleged mistake is based on an incorrect premise
which a bidder discovers after bid opening. Innovative Refrigeration
Concepts, B-242515, Mar. 27, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 332 at 3. To allow such a
correction would impermissibly permit a bidder to recalculate its bid to
arrive at a bid never intended before bid opening. Oregon Elec. Constr.,
Inc., B-232419, Nov. 23, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 512. Since Aquila's bid is clearly
based upon a mistaken premise that only three full-time and two part-time
positions were required, rather than the five full-time positions required
by the IFB, its request for bid modification was properly rejected. [5] See
Nova-CPF, Inc., B-261677, Oct. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 181.

In its comments on the agency report, Aquila argues that if its bid is
considered to contain a mistake that is not capable of correction, then the
agency should have also rejected FMF's bid, because it contained the same
mistake. Protester's Comments at 3.

In general, a bidder whose bid was properly rejected, such as Aquila, is not
an interested party eligible to protest an award to another firm where, as
here, there are other bidders that would be in line for award if the protest
were sustained (that is, the three other bidders, presuming they are
responsible, their bids are responsive, and their higher prices are
reasonable). 4 C.F.R. sect.sect. 21.0(a), 21.2(a) (2000). However this rule does not
apply where a bidder protests that it was denied equal treatment because the
agency rejected its nonconforming bid while accepting a competitor's
similarly nonconforming bid. Maintenance and Repair, B-251223, Mar. 19,
1993, 93-1 CPD para. 247 at 5; Dillingham Ship Repair, B-218653, Aug. 14, 1985,
85-2 CPD para. 167 at 3. In other words, we view a protester as an interested
party where, as here, the basis for protest is that the protester and the
awardee were treated disparately. Maintenance and Repair, supra. Therefore,
Aquila is an interested party to argue that FMF's bid should also be
rejected for containing the same mistake as Aquila's.

As indicated, before making an award the contracting officer requested that
the four low bidders, including FMF, verify their bids. In response to this
request FMF sent the agency its worksheets upon which its bid price was
based. The contracting officer acknowledged receipt of FMF's bid worksheets
before award, yet he states that he "overlooked" the mistake in FMF's bid.
Agency Report, Tab 10, Contracting Officer's Statement. A cursory review of
these worksheets shows that FMF's bid price was also based upon two
part-time positions and three full-time positions, rather than the five
full-time positions required. Based on this record and given that Aquila's
bid was rejected for containing the same mistake, we find that the
contracting officer did not exercise reasonable care in his examination of
FMF's worksheets, which we view as required under FAR sect. 14.407. Thus, while
Aquila's bid was properly rejected for containing a mistake that was not
susceptible to correction, the agency also should have rejected FMF's bid
for the same reason, and we sustain Aquila's protest on this basis.

We recommend that the agency terminate FMF's contract and either make award
to the next low responsible bidder if its bid is determined responsive and
reasonable, or resolicit this requirement. Because the award was improper,
we recommend that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing
and pursuing that aspect of its protest that was sustained. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.6(d). We do not recommend reimbursement of the protester's bid
preparation costs, however, since its bid was properly rejected. See
Maintenance and Repair, supra, at 6. The protester should submit its
certified claim for costs, detailing the time expended and the costs
incurred, directly to the agency within 60 days of receipt of this decision.
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.6(f)(1).

The protest is denied in part and sustained in part.

Anthony H. Gamboa

Acting General Counsel

Notes

1. These changes were also stated on a SF-98a and not in the statement of
work.

2. In contending that the IFB required only three full-time and two
part-time positions, Aquila references the Wellness Reduction Schedule
included in the IFB, which indicated the days and hours during the year the
wellness facility would not be open. While Aquila contends that this
schedule indicates that there is no need for five full-time positions, the
IFB, as indicated above, unambiguously stated that five full-time positions
were required.

Aquila also contends that it was orally informed by the contracting officer
prior to submitting its bid that the agency was seeking three full-time
positions and two part-time positions. Agency Report, Tab 7, Aquila's
Revised Bid at 1. Even assuming that Aquila is correct (the contracting
officer denies he provided such advice), a bidder relies on oral
explanations of solicitation requirements at its own risk, and since the IFB
required five full-time positions, the agency's alleged oral advice had no
effect. See Materials Management Group, Inc., B-261523, Sept. 18, 1995, 95-2
CPD para. 140 at 3-4.

3. The second and third low bidders were also rejected.

4. If this same adjustment were made to FMF's option year prices, its total
bid would increase by $122,500 to $689,144, although this figure could be
even higher, since FMF's option year prices are higher than its base bid
price.

5. Contrary to the agency's expressed belief, Aquila's bid was responsive,
since there was nothing on the face of its bid which took exception to any
of the IFB requirements. Innovative Refrigeration Concepts, supra. However,
since Aquila's bid could not be corrected as requested and evidenced an
obvious yet uncorrectable error, the agency's use of the wrong nomenclature
in rejecting Aquila's bid is immaterial here. Id.