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/gaocrptaegr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: Hercules Construction Corp.
File: B-271872
Date: July 26, 1996
Gregory Rigas for the protester.
Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, for Volmar Construction,
Inc., an intervenor.
Timothy A. Chenault, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
The submission with a bid of a required work schedule which is inconsistent with
required milestone and completion dates creates an ambiguity as to whether the
bidder intended to be bound by the required dates, and such a bid is properly
rejected as nonresponsive.
DECISION
Hercules Construction Corp. protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for
bids (IFB) No. DTCG50-96-B-643ED7, issued by the Department of Transportation,
U.S. Coast Guard, for the construction of various facilities at two New York state
locations (Fort Wadsworth and Rosebank). The agency rejected Hercules's bid as
nonresponsive because the completion and interim milestone dates in Hercules's
computer-generated work schedule furnished with its bid exceeded construction
completion and milestone dates required by the IFB.
We deny the protest.
The IFB, issued on March 11, 1996, required bidders to submit lump-sum prices for
four base bid items (one item for Fort Wadsworth and three items for Rosebank)
and four option items for additional work to be performed at Fort Wadsworth.
Award was to be made on the basis of the total price bid for the base bid items.
Bidders were required to submit with their bids a computer-generated schedule
showing a summary of work with a minimum of forty activities. The activities
were to include contract award (to be assumed to be made on April 18, 1996),
notice to proceed, final inspection, and final acceptance. Bidders were advised that
a [f]ailure to submit this schedule as required may make your bid non-responsive
and [be] cause for rejection of that bid. In another IFB clause covering
116719](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaegr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)