GNB Technologies, Industrial Battery Company

B-262187 Dec 04, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive where. Allegation that contracting agency should have rejected low bid as nonresponsive is denied where bid takes no exception to the solicitation's material requirements. These systems provide a constant level of electrical power and are installed in critical communication and intelligence centers where maintenance of the highest level of reliability and continuity of operation are critical. [1] To demonstrate that they were capable of successful performance. Bidders were instructed to submit with their bids a "comprehensive response to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid to enable the Government to evaluate offeror's understanding of and capability to perform the Navy's requirements as set forth in . . . this solicitation.". View Decision Matter of: GNB Technologies, Industrial Battery Company File: B-262187 Date: December 4, 1995 Protester's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive where, on its face, it took exception to a material requirement. Allegation that contracting agency should have rejected low bid as nonresponsive is denied where bid takes no exception to the solicitation's material requirements. Attorneys DECISION GNB Technologies, Industrial Battery Company protests the rejection of its bid and the award of a contract to Yuasa-Exide, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N47408-94-B-2033, issued by the Department of the Navy for lead calcium and antimony hybrid batteries. We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on March 29, 1995, contemplated the award of a fixed-priced requirements contract for a variety of batteries, battery systems, and related services, such as battery disposal, to support the Navy's uninterrupted power support (UPS) systems. These systems provide a constant level of electrical power and are installed in critical communication and intelligence centers where maintenance of the highest level of reliability and continuity of operation are critical. [1] To demonstrate that they were capable of successful performance, bidders were instructed to submit with their bids a "comprehensive response to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid to enable the Government to evaluate offeror's understanding of and capability to perform the Navy's requirements as set forth in . . . this solicitation." The solicitation did not contain a descriptive literature requirement. The IFB specifications provided, in pertinent part, that battery types D through J shall consist of single cell units and that battery types K through S shall have a maintenance-free valve regulated design, with a pressure valve limit of less than 4 pounds per square inch (psi). [2] Five bids were received by the May 25 bid opening date. The protester submitted the apparent low bid at $65,120,595; and Yuasa-Exide submitted the second-low bid at $76,083,679. The agency determined that the protester's bid was nonresponsive and, on July 20, made award to Yuasa-Exide, Inc., as the low, responsive bidder. This protest followed. The Navy viewed the protester's bid as nonresponsive because while the IFB required that battery types K through S have a pressure valve limit of less than 4 psi, in its bid GNB offered N through S batteries with a pressure relief vent valve which operates in the range of 3 to 7 psi. To be responsive, a bid, as submitted, must represent an unequivocal offer to perform, without exception, in accordance with requirements set forth in the IFB so that the bidder will be bound to perform in accordance with all the material terms and conditions. Contech Constr. Co., B-241185, Oct. 1, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 264. A deficiency or deviation which goes to the substance of the bid by affecting price, quality, quantity, or delivery of the article offered is a material deviation that requires the bid to be rejected as nonresponsive. Seaboard Elecs. Co., B-237352, Jan. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 115. The agency explains that the pressure valve limit requirement is material because it is safety related and significantly affects battery quality; the vents in maintenance-free batteries are prone to failure and excess pressure may rupture a container. The requirement for a pressure valve limit of less than 4 psi was intended to provide a margin of safety to prevent rupture of any battery container, irrespective of any nuances of a particular bidder's container design. By proposing N through S batteries that use a pressure relief vent valve which operates in the range of 3 to 7 psi, GNB's bid took exception to an IFB specification requirement. Since the pressure valve limit requirement was material, the contracting officer properly determined that GNB's bid was nonresponsive because it did not constitute an unequivocal offer to perform in accordance with all material IFB requirements.