[Protest Alleging Awardee's Bid Was Nonresponsive Under Army IFB]

A firm protested that the awardee's bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive under an Army invitation for bids for public address systems. Bids were solicited on a brand name or equal basis, and a bidder offering an alleged equal was required to furnish any descriptive literature necessary for the government to establish exactly what was being offered. The protester contended that: (1) the awardee's bid was ambiguous and thus nonresponsive; (2) its own descriptive literature was copied by the awardee; and (3) the awardee's literature did not establish exactly what was being offered. The Army stated that its technical personnel had no difficulty in determining from the awardee's literature that its system met the salient characteristics. GAO found that: (1) there was only one reasonable interpretation of the awardee's bid; and (2) even if the awardee used the protester's literature in creating its own, the awardee's bid was technically responsive. Accordingly, the protest was denied.