Reconsideration of Prior Decision

An offerer of janitorial services under a solicitation by the Forest Service, requested reconsideration of an earlier decision denying her protest against the award to another offerer on the grounds that her bid had properly been rejected as nonresponsive and that her price was ambiguous. The solicitation was erroneously called an invitation for bids in the original protest and decision, indicating procurement by formal advertising, but the Forest Service has revealed that it was a negotiated procurement under the authority for small purchases. Nevertheless, all parties treated it as if it were an advertised procurement. The solicitation as issued covered janitorial services for 12 months for which the offerer submitted a sealed bid of $4,200, or $350 per month. However, the Forest Service shortened the period to 11 months and requested bid amendments from the offerers. The protester replied by appending an ambiguous notation to her bid, meant as an agreement to prorate her original bid over 11 months, for $3,850. This was unclear and a $4,100 contract was awarded to the next-lowest offerer. GAO decided that the protester's bid was nonresponsive because it was subject to two interpretations, although there was evidence to support her claim that she expected proration of her bid. Regulations governing small purchases permit great flexibility and the contracting officer could have asked for a price clarification without creating a prohibited auction situation. The solicitation forms used contained a blank for unit price, which the awardee ignored entirely. Because of the ambiguity of the protester's bid and the apparent sincerity of the contracting officer's actions, the prior decision denying the protest was affirmed, but GAO advised the Secretary of Agriculture that in ensuing small purchases, the Forest Service should use the more informal negotiation procedures prescribed by regulations.