TITLE:  Marine Metal, Inc., B-292445.3, December 19, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292445.3
DATE:  December 19, 2003
**********************************************************************
Marine Metal, Inc., B-292445.3, December 19, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Marine Metal, Inc.
    
File:            B-292445.3
    
Date:              December 19, 2003
    
Manuela Perez for the protester.
Janis P. Rodriguez, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, 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 for the dismantling of up to four ships does
not prohibit *all or none* bids, a bid that expressly states it is a
package bid for the complete dismantling of two named ships is an *all or
none* bid for those ships and cannot be considered for award of only one
of the ships.
DECISION
    

   Marine Metal, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Bay Bridge
Enterprises, LLC under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTMA1B03015, issued
by Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, for dismantling
and disposing of four ships located in the James River Reserve Fleet,
Virginia.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The IFB, issued February 21, 2003, used the two-step sealed bidding
process under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 14.5.  Step one
solicited technical proposals to dismantle one or more of the following
four ships:  the Santa Isabel, the Mormacdawn, the Santa Elena and the
Catawba Victory.  The offerors who submitted technically acceptable step
one proposals would be eligible for the step two sealed bid price
competition.  Marine Metal, Bay Bridge, ESCO Marine, and two other
offerors submitted technically acceptable step one proposals.
    
On May 27, the agency issued amendment 0002 to the IFB, which solicited
the step two sealed bids.  The IFB permitted bids on one, all or any
combination of ships; however, *a separate bid price must be submitted for
each vessel bid.*  IFB amend. 2, S:S: L-9, L-10.B.  The IFB also provided,
*A separate bid must be submitted for each vessel combination offered by
any [bidder],* and *the government reserves the right to award any
combination of the vessels to one or multiple responsive, responsible
[bidders], whose bid offers the lowest overall price.* Id. S: L‑4. 
Prior to bid opening, the agency advised the bidders:
    
Note that the Santa Isabel is currently also being considered for award
under other contracting options available to the Maritime Administration.
IFB amend. 3. 
    
Bid opening was held on June 10.  Marine Metal submitted three bids--one
for the Catawba Victory, one for the Santa Isabel, and one for both the
Catawba Victory and the Santa Isabel.  A cover letter submitted with the
latter bid stated the following:
    
The enclosed package bid is for the complete dismantling of two vessels,
the *Santa Isabel* and the *Catawba Victory* . . . .
Agency Report, Tab K, Marine Metal Bid, at 1.[1]  The other bidders
submitted bids with prices for each of the four ships. 
    
ESCO submitted the low bids for both the Catawba Victory and the Santa
Isabel.  Bay Bridge submitted the second-low bid for the Catawba Victory,
and another bidder submitted the second-low bid for the Santa Isabel. 
Marine Metal*s individual bids for the Catawba Victory and the Santa
Isabel represented the third-low bids for each of those vessels.  However,
Marine Metal*s package bid for both vessels represented the second-low bid
if contracts for both vessels were awarded under the solicitation, and the
individual prices for each of these vessels under the package bid was also
lower than the second-low individual bids for each of these vessels. 
    
On July 7, the agency awarded a contract to ESCO for dismantling the
Catawba Victory and all of the other ships, except for the Santa Isabel. 
On July 25, the agency awarded a contract for dismantling the Santa Isabel
under another solicitation.
    
On August 7, after ESCO failed to post required bonds, the agency
terminated ESCO*s contract for the Catawba Victory.  The agency
subsequently notified Marine Metal that its package bid for both vessels
was contingent on the bidder receiving a contract for dismantling both
vessels, and that, since the Santa Isabel was removed from the IFB, the
package bid could no longer be considered.  On August 27, the agency
awarded a contract for the Catawba Victory to Bay Bridge, the second
lowest bidder for that ship.  This protest followed.
    
Marine Metal alleges that, once the Santa Isabel was removed from the IFB,
its package bid for the Catawba Victory and the Santa Isabel became a bid
for the Catawba Victory alone, and since its bid price for the Catawba
Victory under its package bid was lower than Bay Bridge*s, it should have
received the award for that ship.
    
Where an IFB does not prohibit bidding on an *all or none* basis, bidders
are permitted to qualify their bids on that basis; where a bid is
submitted with such a qualification, the bidder does not have the option
to decide after bid opening whether it will accept an award for less items
than stated in the qualified bid.  Pluribus Prods., Inc., B-224435, Nov.
7, 1986, 86-2 CPD P: 536 at 3.
    
In this case, the IFB permitted bids for one, all or any combination of
ships, and reserved the right to award any combination of ships to one or
more bidders.  Thus, all or none bids were permitted.  Notwithstanding the
protester*s allegations, Marine Metal*s package bid constituted an all or
none bid for dismantling both the Catawba Victory and the Santa Isabel, as
clearly stated in the cover letter submitted with that bid, which stated,
*The enclosed package bid is for the complete dismantling of two
vessels.*  Therefore, an award can only be based on Marine Metal*s package
bid if a contract for both ships was awarded to Marine Metal, and once the
contract for the Santa Isabel was awarded under another solicitation, an
award based on the package bid was no longer possible.
    
Marine Metal nevertheless references a prospective bidder*s question
answered by the agency in Amendment 0003, which asked if bids could
propose percentage discounts based on the number of ships awarded to a
single bidder, to which the agency responded that multiple ship discounts
would not be evaluated and that the price bid for each of the four ships
must represent the total price for the respective ship.  IFB amend. 3,
attach. 1, Question 10.  Marine Metal states that, in view of the agency*s
advice that multiple ship discounts were not allowed, this indicated that
the agency could choose any part of Marine*s Metal*s package bid in
determining the low bidder for either ship covered by that bid.  Contrary
to Marine Metal*s argument, this response did not preclude all or none
bids, which were otherwise allowed by the IFB, but only precluded multiple
ships discounts in lieu of specific bid prices for each ship.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] Marine Metal did not submit bids on the other two ships.