TITLE:  Hunot Fire Retardant Company, B-286679.2, May 21, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-286679.2
DATE:  May 21, 2001
**********************************************************************
Hunot Fire Retardant Company, B-286679.2, May 21, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Hunot Fire Retardant Company

File: B-286679.2

Date: May 21, 2001

John G. Horan, Esq., McDermott, Will & Emery, for the protester.

Paul F. Dauer, Esq., Dauer & Thompson, an intervenor.

Marion T. Cordova, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, for the
agency.

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency should have considered the clean-up costs associated
with using one firm's fire retardant in determining the lowest bidder is
denied where solicitation did not advise prospective bidders that agency
would evaluate such costs; solictations must expressly indicate any
price-related factors (other than bid price) that agency intends to evaluate
for award purposes.

DECISION

Hunot Fire Retardant Company protests the award of a contract to Fire-Trol
Holdings, L.L.C. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 49-00-12, issued by the
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for long-term fire
retardant. Hunot alleges that the agency improperly failed to add certain
costs to the Fire-Trol bid in arriving at the firm's price for award
purposes, and that Hunot's price would have been low had the agency added
these costs.

We deny the protest.

The IFB contemplates the award of one or more requirements contracts to
furnish bulk fire retardant at numerous temporary and permanent bases
throughout the United States. IFB at 129. The solicitation included a
standard clause from the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) which
provides:

To evaluate offers for award purposes, the Government will apply the
Offeror's proposed fixed prices/rates to the estimated quantities included
in the solicitation, and will add other direct costs if applicable.

AGAR sect. 452.216-72, 48 C.F.R., Ch. 4 (2000). In response to the IFB, the
agency received two bids, one from Fire-Trol and one from the protester.
After evaluating the bids, the agency determined that Fire-Trol had
submitted the lowest price for 21 of the 24 bases and made award to the firm
for those locations.

Hunot contends that the agency improperly failed to add the cost associated
with handling the Fire-Trol product to the firm's bid before arriving at its
price for evaluation and award purposes. According to the protester, the
Fire-Trol product contains a chemical, sodium hexacyanoferrate, that
produces cyanide when exposed to ultraviolet light. The protester asserts
that the agency was required to add to Fire-Trol's bid the cost associated
with cleaning up the agency's facilities and equipment after storage and
handling of the Fire-Trol product, because traces of cyanide will remain.
Hunot maintains that these costs are significant because the waste water
generated from cleaning up the agency's equipment must be disposed of in
accordance with numerous state and federal environmental laws and
regulations. Hunot contends that these costs are "other direct costs" that
the solicitation provision quoted above provided would be added to bids for
evaluation purposes.

The protest is without merit. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
requires agencies to include in an IFB an express statement of any
price-related factors other than bid price that will be considered when
evaluating bids. FAR sect.sect. 14.201-5(c), 14.201-8. [1] Consistent with the FAR,
we have held that solicitations must clearly identify the basis for bid
evaluation; where an agency intends to evaluate a price-related factor in
arriving at its award decision, it is required to expressly identify that
factor in the solicitation. Respiratory & Convalescent Specialties, Inc.
B-255176,

Feb. 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 101 at 3.

Here, the IFB did not expressly provide for adding clean-up costs to the bid
prices for evaluation purposes. Hunot's reliance on the solicitation
language quoted above is misplaced. That general language (i.e. other direct
costs, if applicable) is inadequate to put prospective bidders on notice
that the agency intends to evaluate any specific price-related factors
beyond the bid prices submitted; simply stated, if the agency had intended
to evaluate the clean-up costs associated with the use of one or another
product, it would have had to expressly advise prospective bidders of

its intent by the terms of the IFB. In the absence of an express statement
in the IFB, the agency properly did not add the possible costs associated
with clean-up to
Fire-Trol's bid in arriving at the firm's evaluated price. [2]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. FAR sect. 14.201-8 includes an illustrative list of five possible
price-related factors which could differ among prospective bidders (for
example, the origin of supplies), and states that the agency "shall" include
a statement regarding the applicability of the illustrative price-related
factors in any solicitation where the agency intends to evaluate those
price-related factors.

2. To the extent that Hunot's protest can be considered an allegation that
the IFB should have provided for evaluation of the clean-up costs associated
with using the Fire-Trol product, since Hunot did not file in our Office
prior to the deadline for submitting bids, it is untimely. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.2(a)(1) (2001).