Jamco Constructors, Inc., B-283172.2, October 4, 1999

B-283172.2 Oct 04, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights It thus was not clear that protester was offering to meet all solicitation requirements. The Corps determined from the drawings that the GE transformer was unacceptable because (among other reasons) the drawings showed the low-voltage bushings on the incorrect sidewall. Jamco's bid did not indicate which transformer it would supply if it were awarded the contract. The agency rejected Jamco's bid as nonreponsive because it was not clear from the bid that Jamco would supply an acceptable transformer. A bid accompanied by descriptive literature that is ambiguous as to whether the bidder is offering an acceptable item must be rejected as nonresponsive. It is undisputed that Jamco's descriptive literature showed the low-voltage bushings in a different location than the IFB drawings. View Decision Matter of: Jamco Constructors, Inc. File: B-283172.2 Date: October 4, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Jamco Constructors, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW54-99-B-0015, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for replacement of a transformer and electrical upgrade work at the Island Creek Pumping Station, John H. Kerr Reservoir, near Boydton, Virginia. We deny the protest. The IFB required bidders to submit descriptive literature, including a sketch or drawing, for the transformer being offered. IFB at 00100-6, 00010-8. The IFB cautioned that if the descriptive literature failed to show that the product offered conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, the bid would be rejected. IFB at 00100-6. Jamco submitted drawings for both a Delta Star, Inc. transformer and a General Electric (GE) Prolec transformer. The Corps determined from the drawings that the GE transformer was unacceptable because (among other reasons) the drawings showed the low-voltage bushings on the incorrect sidewall. Although the Delta Star descriptive literature did show compliance with the solicitation requirements, Jamco's bid did not indicate which transformer it would supply if it were awarded the contract. Consequently, the agency rejected Jamco's bid as nonreponsive because it was not clear from the bid that Jamco would supply an acceptable transformer. In this regard, where, as here, an IFB requires descriptive literature to establish that the offered item meets IFB requirements, a bid accompanied by descriptive literature that is ambiguous as to whether the bidder is offering an acceptable item must be rejected as nonresponsive. Electrophysics Corp., B-258674, Feb. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 63 at 2; Calma Co., B-209260.2, June 28, 1983, 83-2 CPD Para. 31 at 6-7. It is undisputed that Jamco's descriptive literature showed the low-voltage bushings in a different location than the IFB drawings. Jamco argues, however, that the solicitation did not require that the low-voltage bushings be in the same location as shown in the solicitation drawings, and that the Corps thus improperly determined that its literature showed the GE transformer did not meet the specifications. In this regard, Jamco believed that the final locations and dimensions of items such as the low-voltage bushings could not be determined until the final transformer design is completed. Jamco therefore assumed that the descriptive literature only had to show that the transformer met the technical specifications relating to the transformer's operational and performance capabilities. In support of this position, Jamco notes that the IFB required the successful bidder to submit outline drawings and assembly and detail drawings for approval within 120 days after award, IFB at 16320-5, and that the equipment arrangement or equipment device requirements could be changed subject to approval. IFB at 16050-16. /1/ Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of the terms of a solicitation, we will resolve the matter by reading the solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions. Lankford-Sysco Food Servs., Inc.; Sysco Food Servs. of Arizona, Inc., B-274781, B-275081, Jan. 6, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 11 at 3-4. We think the IFB provisions here, read together, required that the bushings be located in accordance with the IFB drawings. The standard descriptive literature clause in the IFB (Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.214-21) stated that "[d]escriptive literature is required to establish, for the purpose of evaluation and award, details of the product offered that are specified elsewhere in the solicitation . . . ." IFB at 00100-6. The clause went on to state that "[t]he failure of descriptive literature to show that the product offered conforms to the requirements of this solicitation will require rejection of the bid." Id.