Information Processing Services, Inc., B-282220, June 10, 1999

B-282220 Jun 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Therefore was nonresponsive. That for payment the vendor was required to accept cash. The provision included two blank spaces where the bidder was to insert the two methods of the three that it would accept. Bid opening was set for 2 p.m. on January 26. One part was delivered by Federal Express at 11 a.m. on January 26. The other part was hand-delivered by IPS's representative at 1:51 p.m. the same day. Bids were opened and IPS was determined to be the low bidder. Specifically asking it to provide the two methods of payment it was willing to accept. The agency then determined that IPS was responsible. Determined that IPS's bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive for failure to include section G.1. View Decision Matter of: Information Processing Services, Inc. File: B-282220 Date: June 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Information Processing Services, Inc. (IPS) protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive, and the consequent termination of its contract as improperly awarded, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. B-001, issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for on-site photocopying and related services to the public at its divisional office in Alexandria, Virginia. We deny the protest. Section G.1 of the IFB, which dealt with collection of fees from the public for photocopy services, provided, among other things, that for payment the vendor was required to accept cash, money orders, and cashier's checks. It also required that the vendor accept, at no additional charge to the customer, and without any minimum order or minimum charge requirements, at least two of three additional methods of payment: (1) credit card; (2) check; or (3) customer billable accounts. The provision included two blank spaces where the bidder was to insert the two methods of the three that it would accept. The IFB required bidders to submit section G.1 with their bids. IFB Sec. L.11(c)(iv). Bid opening was set for 2 p.m. on January 26, 1999. IPS delivered its bid in two parts; one part was delivered by Federal Express at 11 a.m. on January 26, and the other part was hand-delivered by IPS's representative at 1:51 p.m. the same day. Bids were opened and IPS was determined to be the low bidder. However, when the procurement officer examined both of IPS's bid submissions, she discovered that neither included section G (which included section G.1). The agency requested clarification from IPS, specifically asking it to provide the two methods of payment it was willing to accept. Agency Report, exh. 5, at 3rd unnumbered page. IPS responded by transmitting by telefacsimile a copy of section G.1, with "Credit Card" and "Check" typed in the blanks. Agency Report, exh. 6, at 4th unnumbered page. The agency then determined that IPS was responsible, and made award to IPS with performance to begin on March 1. When another bidder filed an agency-level protest (regarding issues unrelated to this case), the agency examined the procurement file in detail, and determined that IPS's bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive for failure to include section G.1, and that the opportunity given to clarify the omission had been improper. The agency notified IPS on February 26 that its contract had been awarded improperly, and therefore would be terminated. IPS maintains that its bid was responsive and that the original award was proper. A bid, to be responsive, must constitute an unequivocal offer to provide the exact items or services called for in the IFB, so that government's acceptance of the bid will legally bind the bidder to perform the contract in accordance with all the material terms and conditions. Sillcocks Plastics Int'l, Inc., B-277549, Sept. 19, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 81 at 2. It follows that an incomplete bid can be found responsive only where it unambiguously incorporates all of the material terms and conditions of the IFB. Kim's Gen. Maintenance, Inc., B-275823, Apr. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 128 at 3. Material terms of an IFB are those that affect the price, quality, quantity or delivery of the goods or services offered. Seaboard Elecs. Co., B-237352, Jan. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 115 at 4. IPS's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive. Aside from section G.1, the IFB nowhere imposed an obligation on the contractor to accept more than one, or any particular, method of payment. We think it is clear that the contractor's willingness to accept various methods of payment from the public could affect the accessibility of the services to the public; IPS does not assert otherwise. Given that the purpose of the contract is to provide services to the public, we agree with the agency that section G.1 was material.