Protest Against Rejection of Bid as Nonresponsive to Small Requirements Clause

A company protested against rejection of its bid as nonresponsive to a "Small Requirements" clause in the solicitation, maintaining that its insertion of a minimum figure was gratuitous and should have been disregarded and that confusion was due to omission of a revised clause in the solicitation. The bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive on the basis of insertion of an amount for the minimum acceptable order greater than that specified. Inadvertent omission of the revised clause which had been recommended by GAO did not excuse nonresponsiveness since the solicitation as issued was not defective.