United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: National Services, Inc. 

File: B-400836.2 

Date: March 11, 2009 

Gerald J. Richter, Esq., Facca Richter & Pregler, PC, for the protester. 

Tracy Downing, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. 

Frank Maguire, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that additive bid amounts were improperly included in calculation of bidders’ 

prices for evaluation purposes is denied where evaluation in this manner was 

consistent with reasonable reading of relevant solicitation language. 

DECISION 

National Services, Inc., of Newberry, Michigan, protests the award of a contract by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to M R Tafoya Construction, Inc., under 

invitation for bids (IFB) No. VA-786A-08-IB-0049, for gravesite expansion and 

associated work at Fort Gibson National Cemetery, Oklahoma. 

We deny the protest. 

The IFB, issued on July 27, 2008, included two base bid items and five alternate 

items. With regard to evaluation of bid prices for award, IFB amendment 1 provided 

as follows: 

A single award will be made on Bid Item 1 and Bid Item 2. If additional 

funds are available then Bid Add Alternate 1 will be added to the 

award. If more additional funds are available then Bid Add Alternate 2 

will be added to the award. If more additional funds are available then 

Bid Add Alternate 3 will be added to the award. If more additional 

funds are available then Bid Add Alternate 4 will be added to the 
award. If more additional funds are available, then Bid Add Alternate 5 

will be added to the award. 

IFB amend. 1. 

VA received bids from Tafoya and National. Because it determined that adequate 

funds were available to award the additive items, the agency calculated bidders’ 

prices based on all seven items. Since Tafoya’s bid was low, VA made award to 

Tafoya. Agency Request for Summary Dismissal (ARSD), Feb. 5, 2009, at 1. National 

then filed an agency-level protest, asserting that, based on its reading of the 

amendment 1 language quoted above, prices for the additive bid items were 

improperly included in the evaluated prices, and that it should have received award 

on the basis of its low bid for the two base items alone. Id. at 2. VA sustained the 

protest. Id. Tafoya then protested to our Office. In its report in response to the 

protest, VA indicated it had determined that its original decision to calculate bid 

prices based on all seven items was proper and that it was reinstating its award to 

Tafoya. We dismissed Tafoya’s protest on the basis of this corrective action. 

B-400836, Dec. 12, 2008.1

 By letter dated January 12, 2009, VA advised National that 

it was rescinding the decision sustaining its agency-level protest. Protest exh. 6. 

This protest followed. 

National asserts that, based on its reading of amendment 1, the additive bid item 

prices improperly were included in the calculation of bidders’ prices and that it 

should have received award on the basis of its low bid for the two base items. 

In interpreting solicitation language, we will read the solicitation as a whole and in a 

manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. CCITE/SC, B-400782, Nov. 21, 2008, 

2008 CPD ¶ 216 at 3. To be reasonable, an interpretation must be consistent with the 

solicitation when read as a whole and in a reasonable manner. Id.

Here, the only relevant IFB reference to the price evaluation is the quoted 

amendment 1 provision. National’s interpretation turns on the first sentence of that 

provision, which refers to a single award on items 1 and 2. However, National’s 

interpretation fails to account for the balance of the provision, which goes on to 

explain that, if “additional funds are available,” alternate items will be “added to the 

award.” National reads this language, essentially, as providing that, even where VA 

finds it appropriate to award additional items, the price evaluation will be limited to 

items 1 and 2. However, the provision includes no language supporting this 

 

1

 National asserts that the agency improperly failed to provide it with notice of 

Tafoya’s protest, in violation of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 33.104(a)(2) 

and our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.3 (2008). However, our jurisdiction 

does not extend to administrative or procedural matters such as this that do not 

affect the validity of an award. This argument therefore will not be considered. 

See, e.g., Evans Sec. Solutions, Inc., B-311035, Mar. 19, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 58 at 3 n.3. 

Page 2 B-400836.2 
Page 3 B-400836.2 

 

interpretation, which would result in an award that does not represent the lowest 

price for the items awarded. Rather, the provision, read as a whole, advises bidders 

only that, at a minimum, a single award will be made for items 1 and 2 and that, if 

additional funds are found to be available, the additive items also will be awarded; 

the provision nowhere states that the prices for additive items to be awarded will not 

be evaluated.2

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

2

 We note that our reading of the language in question also is consistent with the 

general principle that the evaluation of bids must be based on the likely cost to the 

government, based on the actual work awarded. See Ahern & Assoc., Inc., 

B-254907.4, Mar. 31, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 236; TNT Indus. Contractors, Inc. B-288331, 

Sept. 25, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 155.