Protest Involving Contract Awarded by Item

A firm protested the rejection by the Forest Service of its bid for a contract to plant trees in five ranger districts of Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington. The invitation for bids (IFB) identified 23 areas for reforestation and provided for separate offers for each, with the provision that bidders for work on more than one area could qualify their bids by setting a maximum acreage and dollar limit on the amount of work for which they could be obligated. The protester's bid was determined to be nonresponsive because it confined the extent of the bidder's prospective performance to two areas, without specifying monetary or area limits. The protester was the apparent low bidder on only one area, but because of the determination of nonresponsiveness, the Forest Service awarded the contract to a competitor. The concept of bid responsiveness requires an unequivocal offer to provide the requested items in conformance with the terms and specifications of the IFB. In cases of deviation from the manner of bidding specified, GAO has determined the issue according to the possibility of prejudicial effects on other bidders. GAO believed that the protester's bid should have been accepted for the area for which it was eligible because its bid qualification could be satisfied with no hardship to the Government and the bidder was able to perform the contract without modification. Also, there would be no prejudice to other bidders. Although the protester should have received the contract, GAO could recommend no corrective action, since the competitor winning the award had already moved its work crews and equipment into the area and commenced contract performance, scheduled for completion in only 30 days. GAO advised the Secretary of Agriculture that appropriate action must be taken to prevent a recurrence of this situation in future procurements. It was recommended that bidders be permitted to limit their bids to items as well as acreage or monetary value because the present limitation restricts competition to firms with unlimited resources or those willing to bid only on areas whose total acreage or distribution is within their capacity.