Contract Lease Management, Inc., B-276999.2, October 21, 1997

B-276999.2 Oct 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was for the purchase of top-loading horizontal-axis (h-axis) clothes washing machines and the lease of four types of clothes drying machines. Model that they were offering. That the failure of descriptive literature to show that the product offered conforms to the requirements of this solicitation will require rejection of the bid. Were received by the May 13 bid opening. Model of the washing machine it was offering to provide. The equipment CLMI proposed for the double load gas dryers and stacked double load gas dryers were equipped with 8-inch exhaust ducts rather than the 6-inch exhaust ducts required by the solicitation. The agency determined that CLMI's bid was nonresponsive for failing to identify the washer the bidder was offering and for offering unacceptable dryers. View Decision Matter of: Contract Lease Management, Inc. File: B-276999.2 Date: October 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Contract Lease Management, Inc. (CLMI) protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF48-97-B-0006, issued by the Department of the Army for the purchase of washers and the lease of dryers for installation at various locations at Fort Hood, Texas, and the subsequent conversion of the IFB to a request for proposals (RFP). We deny the protest. The IFB, issued April 15, 1997, was for the purchase of top-loading horizontal-axis (h-axis) clothes washing machines and the lease of four types of clothes drying machines, [1] along with associated maintenance and repair services. The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. Under the terms of the IFB, the agency reserved the right to make two separate awards, one for the washers and one for the dryers. The IFB's statement of work (SOW) listed the minimum requirements for each item of equipment. Among other things, the IFB required that the washer be a commercial, top-loading h-axis washer, and that the double load gas dryers and stacked double load gas dryers be equipped with 6-inch exhaust ducts. For each piece of equipment, the IFB required bidders to specify the manufacturer, brand, and model that they were offering. Additionally, the IFB included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.212-1, which states, in relevant part, that, at a minimum, bidders must submit a technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. The IFB also required bidders to submit descriptive literature with their bids in accordance with FAR Sec. 52.214-21(c), which states, in relevant part, that the failure of descriptive literature to show that the product offered conforms to the requirements of this solicitation will require rejection of the bid. Five bids, including CLMI's, were received by the May 13 bid opening. After withdrawal of the apparent low bid, CLMI's bid became low. However, CLMI's bid did not identify the manufacturer, brand, and model of the washing machine it was offering to provide. Additionally, the equipment CLMI proposed for the double load gas dryers and stacked double load gas dryers were equipped with 8-inch exhaust ducts rather than the 6-inch exhaust ducts required by the solicitation. Finally, CLMI's bid did not include descriptive literature for either the washers or the dryers. The agency determined that CLMI's bid was nonresponsive for failing to identify the washer the bidder was offering and for offering unacceptable dryers. Specifically, the agency found that it could not determine if CLMI was bidding a washer that conformed to the requirements of the IFB because CLMI did not identify the manufacturer or model of the washer in its bid. The agency also found CLMI's bid to be nonresponsive for the double load gas dryers and the stacked double load gas dryers because they were equipped with 8-inch exhaust ducts rather than the 6-inch duct required by the solicitation. [2] Three other bids were also found nonresponsive because they offered equipment that was no longer being manufactured, or offered dryers with 8- inch exhaust ducts. One firm submitted a bid on washers only that was considered responsive. However, the agency determined that it was not in its best interests to award only the washer portion of the requirement because it believed that it could obtain a more reasonable cost by making a single award for both washers and dryers. The contracting officer determined, in accordance with FAR Sec. 14.404-1(c)(8) to cancel the solicitation and, in accordance with FAR Sec. 14.404-1(e)(1) and 15.103 to complete the acquisition by negotiation.