United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Seawolf Construction Corporation 

File: B-405730

Date: December 21, 2011

Antonio P. Franco, Esq., and Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., PilieroMazza PLLC, for the 

protester.

Ciara C. Young, Esq., Woolford Law, PC, for Cedar Electric, Inc., the intervenor.

Kate Gorney, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

An awardee’s failure to provide a price for an additive contract line item did not 

render the awardee’s bid nonresponsive, where, consistent with the invitation for 

bids, the agency’s award did not include that additive item.

DECISION

Seawolf Construction Corporation, of Jersey City, New Jersey, protests the award of 

a contract to Cedar Electric, Inc., of Lititz, Pennsylvania, under invitation for bids 

(IFB) No. VA-244-11-IB-0176, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for 

construction services. Seawolf argues that Cedar’s bid was nonresponsive, because 

the awardee failed to provide a price for each of the IFB’s contract line items 

(CLINs).

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The IFB provided for the award of a contract for the construction of a new 

residential rehabilitation and treatment wing at the VA Medical Center in Lebanon, 

Pennsylvania. The solicitation included CLINs for the “base bid” item and five 

“alternate” items, for which bidders were to submit prices. The base bid (CLIN 

0001) consisted of the construction of the new wing, while the alternate items 

consisted of various additions, such as metal roofing (CLIN 0002), balustrades (CLIN 

0004), and dormers for the central building (CLIN 0005). The IFB stated that award 
Page 2 B-405730 

would be based on the lowest price for the base bid plus “any combination of the 

alternate items (CLIN 0002 to CLIN 0007).” IFB at 6. In this regard, the IFB stated

[t]he Government shall have the right to accept alternates in any 

order or combination, and to determine the low bidder on the basis 

of the sum of the Base Bid . . . plus accepted alternates (CLIN 0002 

to CLIN 0007). The low bidder will be the offeror that is otherwise 

eligible for award and offers the lowest Base Bid plus accepted 

alternate items.

Id.

In response to the IFB, the VA received the following bids from Seawolf and Cedar:

Seawolf Cedar

BASE BID ITEM

CLIN 0001 $2,489,000 $1,919,500

ALTERNATE ITEMS1

CLIN 0002 $121,000 $42,200

CLIN 0004 $9,000 $6,000

CLIN 0005 $85,000 N/A

CLIN 0006 $500 $1,500

CLIN 0007 $9,000 $9,200

TOTAL PRICE $2,713,500 $1,978,400

Agency Report (AR), Tab 8a, Abstract of Bids.

The agency determined that it had mistakenly included CLIN 0005 in the IFB,

because this work (dormers for the central building) had already been awarded 

under a prior contract.2 Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1-2. The agency decided 

to award a contract for the base bid and four remaining alternate items to Cedar, as 

the bidder with the lowest overall price for these items ($1,978,400 as compared to 

Seawolf’s $2,628,500). Award was made to Cedar, and this protest followed. 

 1

The IFB did not include CLIN 0003.

2

Cedar was the awardee for the previous construction work, and thus the firm was 

aware that the agency had mistakenly included CLIN 0005 here. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 2. 
Page 3 B-405730 

DISCUSSION

Seawolf argues that the agency was required to reject Cedar’s bid as nonresponsive 

because the awardee did not price CLIN 0005. Seawolf cites in this regard our 

decisions in The Jorgensen Forge Corp., B-255426, Feb. 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 157 and 

Propper Mfg. Co., Inc., B-245366, Dec. 30, 1991, 92-1 CPD ¶ 14. We find no merit to 

the protester’s argument.

To be responsive, a bid must represent an unequivocal offer to comply with the IFB’s 

material terms. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 14.404-2. Where a solicitation 

includes a base bid and various additive items, bids must be evaluated on the basis of 

the work actually awarded. Jones Floor Covering, Inc., B-237139, Jan. 5, 1990, 90-1 

CPD ¶ 25 at 3. Thus, a bid which fails to include prices for some items should be 

rejected only if evaluation and award include the items not bid. The Haskins Co., 

B-227898, Sept. 21, 1987, 87-2 CPD ¶ 285 at 2; Fletcher & Sons, Inc., B-212530.2, 

Dec. 13, 1983, 83-2 CPD ¶ 678 at 3-4. Here, Cedar’s failure to submit a price for CLIN 

0005 did not render the bid nonresponsive because, consistent with the terms of the 

solicitation, the agency decided not to award CLIN 0005.

Our decisions in The Jorgensen Forge Corp. and Propper Mfg. Co., Inc. are 

inapposite to the situation presented here. In Jorgensen Forge, the solicitation 

stated that the basis for award would be the aggregate sum of all CLIN prices, which 

included base and option items. We found that the agency properly rejected a bid 

that did not price all option items because without these prices the agency would be 

unable to exercise those options. Our decision in Propper did not involve a bidder’s 

failure to price alternative bid items. Rather, that case concerned a bidder’s failure 

to identify the name of its manufacturer in a brand name or equal procurement.

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel