[Protest of Army Rejection of Bid as Nonresponsive]

A firm protested the Army's rejection of its bid for honing machines as nonresponsive, contending that the Army should have either: (1) disregarded the inadvertent inclusion of its standard delivery terms in its descriptive literature; or (2) allowed it to correct the inclusion of those terms as a minor bid error. GAO held that the Army reasonably found the protester's bid nonresponsive, because: (1) the inclusion of the delivery terms was not inadvertent, since each page contained a statement referring to the delivery terms; (2) the bidding documents, not subsequent explanations as to the protester's intent, were the basis for determining the bid's responsiveness; and (3) the protester failed to acknowledge a material solicitation amendment clarifying the machine specifications. Accordingly, the protest was denied.