HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptagcc0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
oComptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: Charles J. Merlo, Inc.
File: B-277384
Date: July 31, 1997
Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester.
William A. Lubich, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where the cognizant funding official advised the contracting officer that funding
necessary to award the solicitation's option quantities was expected to be included
in future appropriations legislation, or else would be allocated from other available
operation and maintenance funds, the contracting officer reasonably determined
that funding would be available to exercise the option quantities; under these
circumstances, contracting officer properly determined that there was no basis to
exclude option quantity pricing from the bid evaluation.
DECISION
Charles J. Merlo, Inc. protests the proposed award of a contract to Mosites
Construction Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW59-97-B-0009,
issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for rehabilitation of the Stoneycreek River
in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Merlo contends that the Army performed an improper
pricing evaluation.
We deny the protest.
The IFB was issued by the Army Corps of Engineers' Pittsburgh District on April 28,
1997, as part of the Johnstown Channel Improvement flood control/rehabilitation
project, and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for 42 Basic Contract
Items and 22 Awardable Option Items to be performed over a 2-year period.
Of significance to this protest, the IFB set forth the standard Evaluation of
Options clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.217-5, which advised
bidders that the government would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding
the total price for all options to the total price for the basic items, unless the
government determined in accordance with FAR § 17.206(b) that evaluation of
option quantities was not in its best interests. The IFB also advised bidders that
[o]nly the basic contract items . . . will be awarded initially since the operation](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptagcc0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)