Newsgroup: it.hobby.lotto
Titolo: Newly Issued CG Decisions

January 18, 2000
The General Accounting Office (GAO) today issued the following
Decisions and Opinions of the Comptroller General:
Bid Protest Decisions:
-  Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., B-283889, January 13, 2000
 
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/283889.htm
   Valenzuela Engineering, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
   Clayton Environmental Consultants (CEC) under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. DACA05-99-R-0041, issued by the Army Corps of
   Engineers for the operation and maintenance of certain
   groundwater treatment systems located at the Los Alamitos Air
   Force Reserve Center in Orange County, California. Valenzuela
   principally challenges the source selection decision.
   We deny the protest.
-  Phantom Products, Inc., B-283882, December 30, 1999
 
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/283882.htm
   Phantom Products, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as
   technically unacceptable, and the award of contracts to Zeni Lite
   Buoy Company, Limited and Vega Industries Limited, under request
   for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-99-R-T43010, issued by the U.S.
   Coast Guard for medium-intensity light emitting diode (LED) buoy
   lanterns.
   We deny the protest.
-  B. E. Meyers & Company, Inc., B-283796, December 14, 1999
 
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/283796.htm
   B. E. Meyers & Company, Inc. (Meyers) protests the exclusion of
   its proposal from the competitive range under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. N00164-99-R-0122, issued by the Department of
   the Navy for the purchase of two different types of weapons
   sights--the night vision crew-served weapon sight (NVCSWS) and
   the submersible night vision individual weapon sight. [1]
   We deny the protest.
These decisions are now available from GAO's World Wide Web site
in both HTML and PDF versions at the indicated URLs (.pdf extension
for PDF version).  They have also been sent to the U.S. Government
Printing Office for addition to the Comptroller General Decisions
GPO Access WAIS database.
===========================================================
This list is produced by the U.S. General Accounting Office
to provide information about GAO Decisions.  The home page
for GAO is 
http://www.gao.gov
--
Posted from 
listserv.gao.gov
 [161.203.16.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.mailgate.org

January 19, 2000
The General Accounting Office (GAO) today issued the following
Decisions and Opinions of the Comptroller General:
Bid Protest Decisions:
-  Decision
 
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/283830.htm
   Overstreet Electric Company, Inc. protests the award of a
   contract to BMAR & Associates, Inc. under invitation for bids
   (IFB) No. DABT23-99-B-0039, issued by the Department of the Army
   for the renovation of electrical services at Van Voorhis Family
   Housing, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Overstreet protests that BMAR’s bid
   should be rejected for failing to acknowledge an amendment and
   that a mistake in Overstreet’s bid should be corrected.
   Id. at 2. This letter went on to explain that, in its letter
   dated September 9, Overstreet had intended to increase its
   initial bid of $1,360,538 by $150,000, to a total of $1,510,538,
   to account for its new understanding of the IFB requirement for
   the electric panels to be installed in the apartments.  Id. at 2.
   Overstreet explained that it subsequently realized that the
   wording in the letter could be interpreted (as it was) as a total
   bid of $150,000, and had since received firm quotations for the
   panelboards specified in section 16470 that allowed it to update
   its bid.  Overstreet thus sent the telegram of September 13 to
   the agency to increase its amended bid price from $150,000, by
   $1,288,830 for both CLINs, to a total of $1,438,830.  Id. at 3.
   The contracting officer determined that Overstreet’s bid
   modification was late and could not be considered, that
   Overstreet’s bid of $150,000 was unreasonably low and must be
   rejected, and that Overstreet’s request for bid correction would
   not be considered because the corrected bid would no longer be
   low.  Agency Report, Tab&nbsp;X, Contracting Officer’s
   Determination, Sept. 23, 1999, at 3.  The amount of BMAR’s bid
   dated August 27 was not changed after amendment 0001 was issued.
   The agency did not receive an acknowledgment of amendment 0001 in
   the name of BMAR; rather, the chief executive officer (CEO) of
   BMAR, the same individual who signed BMAR’s bid, submitted a
   Standard Form 30 acknowledging the amendment in the name of
   another firm, Republic General Contractor LLC.  Agency Report at
   11; Tab I, BMAR’s Bid, at 2; Tab J, Acknowledgment of Amend.
   Upon investigation, the agency determined that the CEO for BMAR
   is also the CEO for Republic.  Agency Report at 11; Tab Q,
   Memorandum for Record of Contracting Officer’s Conversation with
   BMAR, Sept. 16, 1999; Tab R, BMAR’s Bid Verification Letter,
   Sept. 17, 1999.  BMAR explained that the CEO requested
   solicitation packages for both BMAR and Republic, although only
   BMAR submitted a bid.  Agency Report, Tab Q, Memorandum for
   Record of Contracting Officer’s Conversation with BMAR.  In
   response to the agency’s inquiry after bid opening, the CEO
   stated that he inadvertently had signed and submitted the
   acknowledgment form that the agency had sent to it pre-printed
   with Republic’s name, rather than an acknowledgment in BMAR’s
   name.  Id.  The contracting officer "determined that Amendment
   0001 [was] immaterial in that it lessens the Government’s
   requirements and would have a trivial (negative) impact on
   price."  Agency Report, Tab X, Contracting Officer’s
   Determination, Sept. 23, 1999, at&nbsp;3.  The contracting
   officer further determined that Republic’s name on the
   acknowledgment signed by BMAR’s CEO was a minor informality and,
   since the amendment was not material, BMAR’s failure to properly
   acknowledge the amendment could be corrected as a minor
   informality under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
   §&nbsp;14.405.  Id.   The agency awarded the contract to BMAR on
   September 27, 1999.  Agency Report, Tab I, BMAR’s Bid, at 3.
   Overstreet’s protest followed. Overstreet essentially alleges
   that its amended bid of $150,000 contained an obvious error, that
   it had presented clear and convincing evidence of the intended
   bid amount, and that its bid should be corrected to either
   $1,510,538 or $1,438,830, which would make it the second low bid.
   Protest at 8; Amended Protest and Comments at&nbsp;24.
   Overstreet protests that it should receive award at a corrected
   price because BMAR’s bid was nonresponsive inasmuch as it did not
   acknowledge amendment&nbsp;0001, which Overstreet asserts is
   material.  Protest at 8; Protester’s Response to Request for
   Summary Dismissal at 1, 3-5; Amended Protest and Comments at 1,
   8-10, 17-18, 26. A bidder’s failure to acknowledge a material
   amendment of an IFB renders the bid nonresponsive since, absent
   such acknowledgment, the government’s acceptance of the bid would
   not legally obligate the bidder to meet the government’s needs as
   identified in the amendment.  Precise Constr. Management,
   B-278144.2, Feb. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶&nbsp;63 at 3.  On the other
   hand, a bidder’s failure to acknowledge an amendment that is not
   material is waivable as a minor informality.  Id.; FAR
   §&nbsp;14.405.  An amendment is material where it imposes legal
   obligations on the prospective bidder that were not contained in
   the original solicitation, or if it would have more than a
   negligible impact on price, quantity, quality, or delivery.  FAR
   §&nbsp;14.405(d)(2).  An amendment is generally not material
   under this regulation where it has the effect of decreasing the
   price, quantity, quality, delivery, or the bidder’s legal
   obligations, without materially increasing any of these matters.
   See Schuster Eng’g, Inc., B-275044, Jan.&nbsp;17, 1997,
   97-1&nbsp;CPD ¶&nbsp;29 at 2, 4; Doty Bros. Equip. Co., B-274634,
   Dec.&nbsp;19, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶&nbsp;234 at&nbsp;4-5; Conrad
   Indus., Inc., B-213974.2, Aug.&nbsp;7, 1984, 84-2 CPD ¶&nbsp;156
   at 3; MBAssocs., B-197566, June 4, 1980, 80-1 CPD ¶&nbsp;383 at
   2. On its face, amendment 0001 merely reduced the minimum
   integrated short circuit rating for the branch circuit
   panelboards required by the IFB under specification section
   16470, paragraph 2.2.5, from 65,000 amperes to 22,000 amperes.
   This change reduces the performance requirement for branch
   circuit panelboards from that initially required.  Indeed, a bid
   that binds the bidder to provide branch circuit panelboards with
   the original higher minimum integrated short circuit rating would
   exceed the agency’s amended minimum requirement.  Agency Report
   at 17.  It is also undisputed that the effect on price of
   reducing the minimum short circuit rating of the specified
   panelboards would be to reduce price. Thus, on its face, the
   amendment is immaterial.  See Schuster Eng’g, Inc., supra, at 4.
   Nevertheless, Overstreet alleges that the amendment was material
   because, prior to its issuance, the IFB, as Overstreet
   interpreted it, did not require branch circuit panelboards to be
   installed in the apartments, but required the installation of
   only load centers.  Overstreet points to the repeated references
   of the requirement for load centers in section 01010 of the
   specifications and the absence of any reference to panelboards in
   this section, and contends that it reasonably concluded that the
   requirement for branch circuit panelboards at section 16470 of
   the IFB specifications was not applicable, but rather that
   section was a guide specification that inadvertently had been
   included in the IFB.  Overstreet explains that load centers and
   panelboards are different items in that load centers ordinarily
   would be installed in residences, whereas panelboards ordinarily
   would be used in commercial applications.  Overstreet claims that
   there is a significant difference in cost between panelboards and
   the relatively inexpensive load centers.  Overstreet also
   contends that unlike load centers, which could be installed in
   the apartments without modifying the walls, the installation of
   the larger-sized panelboards specified in section 16470 would
   require modification of the walls, which was not adequately
   provided for in the IFB.  Overstreet contends that it was only
   after receiving the amendment modifying the requirements
   pertaining to branch circuit panelboards at section 16470 that it
   determined that it had reached an incorrect, although reasonable,
   conclusion as to how the IFB should be interpreted and realized
   that the specification for branch circuit panelboards was
   applicable.  Overstreet alleges that, since its initial
   interpretation of the IFB requirements was reasonable, and since
   the changes to Overstreet’s bid spurred by the issuance of the
   amendment were material as to performance and bid price, the
   amendment must be considered material.  Protest at 4-9;
   Protester’s Response to Request for Summary Dismissal at 3-4;
   Amended Protest and Comments at 2-6, 10-18, 20, 25; Protester’s
   Submission, Dec. 6, 1999, at 2-3; Protester’s Submission, Dec.
   14, 1999, at 4-5. The agency’s position is that the term "load
   center" as used in the IFB encompassed the panelboards specified
   in section 16470 of the specifications, so there should have been
   no reasonable confusion about whether the agency intended section
   16470 to be applicable.  See Agency Report, Tab AD, Letter from
   Contracting Officer to Overstreet (Sept. 13, 1999). Where, as
   here, a dispute exists as to the meaning of a solicitation
   provision, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation
   as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its
   provisions.  Zeta Constr. Co., Inc., B-244672, Nov. 5, 1991, 91-2
   CPD ¶&nbsp;428 at 4.  We find little merit to Overstreet’s
   arguments as to why this amendment assertedly caused the meaning
   of the IFB to be changed.  Indeed, the only reasonable
   interpretation of the terms of the IFB, as initially issued, as
   well as after amendment 0001 was issued, required the use of
   branch circuit panelboards. The term "load center" is not defined
   in the IFB, nor does the IFB contain any detailed specification
   requirements for load centers, as it does for panelboards.  We
   recognize that Overstreet has produced evidence that indicates
   that the term "load centers" generally refers to items that would
   not meet the section 16470 requirements.  Amended Protest and
   Comments, exh. A, Excerpts from Product Catalog; Protester’s
   Submission, Dec. 6, 1999, attach., Product Descriptions and
   Specifications; Protester’s Submission, Dec. 8, 1999, exh. A,
   Excerpts from Product Catalog, exh. B, Product Descriptions and
   Specifications, exh. C, Letter from Product Vendor to Overstreet
   (Dec. 8, 1999).  Here, however, the record shows that load
   centers perform essentially the same type of functions as
   panelboards.  Indeed, as noted by the agency and conceded by
   Overstreet, the NEC definition of panelboards is sufficiently
   broad to include the load centers on which Overstreet stated it
   based its original bid.The NEC Handbook definition of Panelboard
   is:


January 20, 2000
The General Accounting Office (GAO) today issued the following
Decisions and Opinions of the Comptroller General:
Bid Protest Decisions:
-  Parmatic Filter Corporation, B-283645; B-283645.2, December 20, 1999
 
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/283645.htm
   Matter of: Parmatic Filter Corporation
   We deny the protest.


January 21, 2000
The General Accounting Office (GAO) today issued the following
Decisions and Opinions of the Comptroller General:
No decisions were posted to the internet today.


January 24, 2000
