Comptroller General protest decision "Ambiguity, latent, patent."

[TAP]

Does anyone else find the Comptroller General protest decision "Ambiguity, latent, patent. See IAP-Hill, LLC, B-406289, B-406289.2, B-406289.3, Apr 4, 2012. (May 29, 2012)" a little odd? The protester asserted latent ambiguity, which technically is not correct. But there is a conflict or patent ambiguity between the following:

• The new CBA which included escalated wage rates.
  
• Pargraph B.11 UNIT PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN OPTION PERIODS of the RFP which states "offerors shall not include escalation of wage and fringe benefit rates for Service Contract Act covered employees" in option years.
  
• 52.222-41 Service Contract Act of 1965. Paragraph (f) Successor contracts. Which states neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor under this contract shall pay any service employee performing any of the contract work less than the wages and fringe benefits provided for in such collective bargaining agreement.
  
• 52.222-43 FLSA and SCA—Price Adjustment. Paragraph ( The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause.
  

If a contractor is required by contract to comply with the new CBA which included higher minimum wages and fringe benefits payable to service employees in the option years, then no adjustment should be provided by clause 52.222-43 when the options are exercised since those minimum rates are already included in the contract. In other words, protester loses the protest but couldn't the winning contractor be required to comply with the new CBA option year amounts with no adjustment? Generally contractors may only request a contract price adjustment if the contracting officer modifies the contract to incorporate a new or revised wage determination. They wouldn't necessarily have to do so in this case since it's already included.