The protester cites two IFB provisions that it contends support
its position that the agency was required by the terms of the
IFB to award CLIN 0001 before any other CLIN. The first
provision, entitled “Contract Completion Date,” while
identifying phase 1 as “Base Bid Item #0001,” specifically
provided that the government “has options to award all phases or
individual phases [of the work] and [set the] priority of the
phases.” IFB at 01045-35. By its terms, this provision does not
support the protester’s position. Rather, the provision appears
entirely consistent with the language in other parts of the IFB,
quoted above, which permits a partial award of any CLIN or
combination of CLINs. The second provision cited by the
protester indicates that each phase of the work had a separate
performance period, and that potential liquidated damages would
apply to each phase separately. The provision further provides
as follows:
If more than one line item (phase)
is awarded initially (or at a later date), the performance
period of the subsequent phase(s) will be adjusted to 30 days
instead of 120 days. For example only, if line items 0001,
0002, and 0003 are awarded initially, the performance period
for 0002 and 0003 will be 30 days each. IFB at 01045-3.
There is nothing in this quoted
language that even remotely suggests that the agency is
precluded from awarding CLINs 0002 and 0005 but not CLIN 0001. (Orion
Construction Company, Inc., B-294014, June 30, 2004) (pdf)
Effectively, the deductive options
deleted work included within the base bid (CLIN 0001). The
result was that calculating the bidders' prices for the maximum
amount of work required setting aside the deductive options (CLINs
0003 and 0004), which is what the agency did. There are, in
brief, two questions presented by the protest: whether the
agency was permitted to award a contract for the maximum amount
of work, and whether, in selecting the contractor for such an
award, the agency should have considered the CLIN 0003 and 0004
prices. As for the first question, we see no basis in the
solicitation, and the protester offers no basis, for prohibiting
the agency from awarding a contract for the maximum amount of
work (that is, CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0005). To the extent that
the protester believes that the agency was required to follow
the steps in FAR sect. 17.206(b) to do that (because it was not
considering CLIN 0003 and 0004 prices in its evaluation for
award), it followed those steps: it made a "best
interests" determination and obtained approval at a level
above the contracting officer. Once the agency thus reasonably
decided to award a contract for the maximum amount of work, it
was required to evaluate prices for that scope of work, which
meant that it was prohibited from considering CLIN 0003 and 0004
prices. (TNT
Industrial Contractors, Inc., B-288331, September 25, 2001) |
