TITLE:  Kenneth Ashe, B-295587, March 3, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295587
DATE:  March 3, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Kenneth Ashe

   File:            B-295587

   Date:           March 3, 2005

   Kenneth Ashe, the protester.

   Lori Polin Jones, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

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

   DIGEST

   Qualifying bid submitted in response to a solicitation for the sale of
timber is responsive and the bidder was properly permitted to participate
in the auction, where the bid included a unit rate, and the total bid can
be calculated by multiplying the unit rate by the estimated quantity of
timber stated in the solicitation.

   DECISION

   Kenneth Ashe protests the proposed award of a contract to Kenneth Fletcher
by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture for the Fourmile Special
Salvage Timber Sale in the Modoc National Forest.  Mr. Ashe contends that
Mr. Fletcher's qualifying bid for this auction should have been rejected
by the agency.

   We deny this protest.

   The prospectus for the sale called for the submission of sealed bids to
purchase an estimated 215 thousand board feet (MBF) of ponderosa pine
sawtimber marked or otherwise designated for cutting, and a nominal amount
of white fir sawtimber to be removed at a fixed rate.  The prospectus
indicated that sealed bids would be accepted on December 17, 2004, and
that an oral auction would follow.  The bid form included a "minimum
acceptable bid rate" (block 14(f)) of $22.77, and stated that there was an
estimated quantity of 215A MBF salvage ponderosa pine sawtimber (block
14(d)).  The bid form also stated that the "minimum acceptable total sale
value" of $4,895.55 (block 14(j)) was required in order to have an initial
qualifying sealed bid, which would entitle the bidder to participate in
the oral auction that would follow the opening and posting of the sealed
bids.  In order to complete their sealed bids, bidders were required to
fill in block 14(g), entitled "Bidder's Total Sale Value Bid." 

   On December 17, the sales officer unlocked the bid box and removed two
sealed bids that had been received.  Mr. Ashe submitted a qualifying bid
of $4,895.55 in block 14(j).  Mr.A Fletcher's qualifying bid included a
price of $22.77 in block 14(g).  The sales officer determined that the
intent of Mr. Fletcher's bid was easily discernible by looking at the bid
and multiplying the minimum acceptable bid rate ($22.77), mistakenly
placed in the total sales value block, by the amount of sawtimber for sale
(215 MBF), which results in the minimum acceptable total sale value of
$4,895.55.  The sales officer determined that Mr.A Fletcher intended to
bid the minimum amount necessary in order to submit a qualifying sealed
bid and participate in the oral auction.  She also verified the total bid
value with Mr. Fletcher, accepted and posted both bids as responsive, and
began the oral auction.[2]  After several rounds of bidding, Mr. Fletcher
was announced the apparent high bidder, with a total bid value of
$6,615.55. 

   Mr. Ashe asserts that Mr. Fletcher should not have been permitted to
participate in the oral auction because his qualifying bid was not in the
required amount of at least $4,895.55.

   Here, we find that the agency properly allowed Mr. Fletcher to participate
in the auction, notwithstanding the discrepancy in its total stated
amount, because the total amount intended by Mr.A Fletcher can readily be
determined from the bid to be $4,895.55, and the bid was therefore
responsive.  That is, because Mr. Fletcher indicated that he was bidding
the minimum acceptable bid rate of $22.77, his total bid value is easily
determined by multiplying $22.77, the minimum acceptable bid rate, by 215,
the estimated MBF of salvage ponderosa pine sawtimber.  Since
Mr.A Fletcher's qualifying bid was at least $4,895.55, it was properly
considered to be responsive, such that Mr. Fletcher could participate in
the auction.  See Hughes-Sillers Constr. Co., Inc., B-241466, Jan. 3,
1991, 91-1 CPD P 7 atA 2;  TCI, Ltd., B-220578, Oct.A 21, 1985,
85a**2A CPD P 433 at 3.          

   Mr. Ashe finally alleges that he was prejudiced because the sales officer
did not formally rule on the responsiveness of Mr. Fletcher's bid before
the auction began.  However, since the agency properly found Mr.
Fletcher's bid responsive, we fail to see how Mr. Ashe was prejudiced,
even assuming the agency did not announce its determination of Mr.
Fletcher's bid prior to the commencement of the auction.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] We consider this protest under 4 C.F.R. S 21.13(a) (2004) because the
Forest Service has agreed to have protests of timber sales decided by our
Office. 

   [2] While Mr. Ashe states that he did not observe the sales officer verify
Mr. Fletcher's qualifying bid, such verifications need not be public.  In
any case, even if Mr.A Fletcher was not requested to verify his bid, as
discussed below, the intent of the bid was obvious here, and thus any
agency failure to request verification prior to the auction would be a
matter of form that does not affect the validity or responsiveness of the
bid itself.