B-169874, NOV 5, 1970, 50 COMP GEN 337

B-169874, NOV 5, 1970, 50 COMP GEN 337

BIDS - TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT - SECOND STEP - DEVIATING FROM FIRST STEP THE DETERMINATION TO OPEN THE LATE BID RECEIVED ON ONE OF TWO TECHNICAL PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER THE FIRST STEP OF A TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE EQUIPMENT OFFERED DID NOT MEET ALL THE DETAILS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, WAS PROPER SINCE THE DELAY IN DELIVERY OF THE BID RECEIVED MORE THAN 24 HOURS BEFORE BID OPENING WAS DUE TO GOVERNMENT MISHANDLING. ALTHOUGH THE BID WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A COVERING LETTER AND UNSOLICITED DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE AT VARIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, IT IS NEVERTHELESS A RESPONSIVE BID; FOR IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE LOW BIDDER, WHO HAD QUALIFIED UNDER THE FIRST STEP, WOULD DISQUALIFY ITSELF IN THE SECOND STEP AND, THEREFORE, THE DEVIATING MATERIAL IS VIEWED AS AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE TWO ACCEPTED FIRST-STEP PROPOSALS WAS BEING PRICED IN THE SECOND STEP.

TO GILBERT A. CUNEO, NOVEMBER 5, 1970:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 1970, AND PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING AGAINST AN AWARD TO THE KEARNEY & TRECKER CORPORATION UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS F09603-70-B-4970 ISSUED BY WARNER ROBINS AIR MATERIEL AREA (WRAMA), GEORGIA.

THE SUBJECT INVITATION IS THE SECOND STEP OF A TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT FOR TWO MACHINING CENTERS WITH AN OPTION FOR A THIRD. IN THE FIRST STEP, KEARNEY & TRECKER SUBMITTED ONE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL BASED UPON THE MILWAUKEE-MATIC SERIES EB AND ANOTHER UPON THE MODU-LINE 3630. KEARNEY & TRECKER SUBMITTED DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE, BROCHURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH THE PROPOSALS. THE PROPOSALS WERE EVALUATED AND AFTER SOME AMENDMENT CHANGES HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY KEARNEY & TRECKER, BOTH OF ITS PROPOSALS WERE APPROVED BY WRAMA, AND KEARNEY & TRECKER WAS PROVIDED WITH AN INVITATION TO BID ON THE SECOND STEP. PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY PRATT & WHITNEY, INC. AND THE EX-CELLO-O CORPORATION WERE ALSO APPROVED FOR BIDDING IN THE SECOND STEP.

ALL THREE COMPANIES BID ON THE SECOND STEP, ALTHOUGH THE KEARNEY & TRECKER TECHNICAL PROPOSALS FOR ALTERNATE EQUIPMENTS WERE BOTH ACCEPTABLE, IT BID ON THE BASIS OF FURNISHING ONLY ONE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE SECOND STEP. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE SECOND STEP SOLICITED BIDS FOR TWO MACHINES AND AN OPTIONAL THIRD MACHINE. KEARNEY & TRECKER'S BID WAS LOW IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,011.70 FOR THE FIRST MACHINE, $149,908.70 FOR THE SECOND MACHINE, AND $149,796 FOR THE OPTIONAL MACHINE. PRATT & WHITNEY PRICES FOR THE ITEMS WERE $160,329.60, $160,172.60, AND $159,322.80, RESPECTIVELY. EX- CELLO-O BID $251,525 ON ALL THREE ITEMS.

PRATT & WHITNEY PROTESTED AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF THE KEARNEY & TRECKER BID ON THREE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS:

(1) THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER'S FIRST-STEP TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR THE EQUIPMENT BID UPON DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS;

(2) THAT ENCLOSURES ACCOMPANYING THE BID QUALIFIED IT;

(3) THAT IT IS A LATE BID.

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST-STEP TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR THE EQUIPMENT BID UPON DID NOT MEET THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS. IN CONNECTION WITH THE VARIABLE SPEED REQUIREMENT, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PARAGRAPH 3.4.6 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDES:

SPINDLE. THE SPINDLE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH MEANS OF VARYING ITS SPEED THROUGHOUT THE RANGE OF SPEEDS SPECIFIED FOR THE MACHINE CLASSIFICATION SHOWN IN TABLE I. SPEED CHANGES MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF A STEP CHANGE TRANSMISSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN AC MOTOR, BY USE OF VARIABLE SPEED DC MOTORS WITH LIMITED GEAR CHANGES, BY USE OF DIRECT-CONNECTED VARIABLE SPEED DC MOTOR DRIVE BY AN AC MOTOR WITH VARIABLE SPEED BELT DRIVE OR BY USE OF VARIABLE SPEED HYDRAULIC MOTOR. ***

IN THAT REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSED USING A TWO- SPEED HYDRAULIC MOTOR WITH A 16-STEP GEARBOX WHICH WILL RESULT IN AN OUTPUT OF 32 SPEEDS. IT IS STATED THAT THE TWO-SPEED HYDRAULIC MOTOR IN THE KEARNEY & TRECKER MACHINE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR A "VARIABLE" SPEED HYDRAULIC MOTOR CAPABLE OF VARYING THE SPINDLE SPEEDS THROUGHOUT THE RANGE OF 100 TO 2,000 RPM AS STATED IN TABLE I OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. IT IS STATED FURTHER THAT THE NUMBER OF SPEED VARIATIONS IS LESS THAN THAT INTENDED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PROCURING ACTIVITY.

HOWEVER, THE SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT STATE THE NUMBER OF SPEED VARIATIONS AND THE 32-SPEED CAPABILITY OF THE KEARNEY & TRECKER MACHINE DURING TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS IN THE FIRST STEP WAS DETERMINED TO BE SATISFACTORY; AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL HAVE ADVISED OUR OFFICE INFORMALLY THAT THE 32-SPEED CAPABILITY WILL BE SUFFICIENT. FURTHER, THE SPECIFICATION STATED THE SPEED CHANGES "MAY" (NOT SHALL) BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS LISTED. THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE KEARNEY & TRECKER MACHINE MET THIS SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

MOREOVER, EVEN IF IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSAL DID NOT MEET ALL THE DETAILS OF THE QUOTED PORTION OF PARAGRAPH 3.4.6 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, SUCH FACT WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROPOSAL IF THE PROCURING AGENCY IS SATISFIED, AS IT APPARENTLY IS, THAT THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION WILL BE MET. SEE PARAGRAPH 2-503.1(E) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION WHICH PROVIDES THAT FIRST-STEP PROPOSALS WHICH FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE "ESSENTIAL" REQUIREMENTS OR SPECIFICATIONS ARE NONRESPONSIVE AND ARE TO BE CATEGORIZED AS UNACCEPTABLE.

ANOTHER RESPECT IN WHICH IT IS CONTENDED THE KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSAL DID NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS IS THE FULL FLOATING ZERO REQUIREMENT. IN THAT REGARD, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDERING DATA STATED THAT A FULL FLOATING ZERO IS REQUIRED. THE AIR FORCE RESPONDED THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER INDICATED COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN PARAGRAPH 3.3.8 OF THE SPECIFICATION IT SUBMITTED WITH THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. THE AIR FORCE RELIED UPON THE FACT THAT PARAGRAPH 3.3.8 STATED:

FULL ZERO SHIFT. MEANS SHALL BE PROVIDED SO THAT THE ZERO REFERENCE POINT MAY BE ADJUSTED OVER THE ENTIRE RANGE OF THE CONTROLLED AXIS. ONCE ESTABLISHED, THIS REFERENCE POINT SHALL REMAIN IN THE CONTROL MEMORY UNTIL A DESIRED CHANGE IS INSTITUTED. BY MANUALLY RETURNING THE SLIDES TO WITHIN .040" OF THE HOME POSITIONS AND DEPRESSING THE ZERO AXIS POSITION BUTTONS, THE MACHINE SHALL AUTOMATICALLY RESYCHRONIZE TO THE STANDARD GRID.

YOU CONTEND THAT THE AIR FORCE HAS CONFUSED FULL FLOATING ZERO WITH FULL ZERO SHIFT. IN THAT REGARD, YOU POINT OUT THAT ROBERTS AND PRENTICE OBSERVED IN APPENDIX "C" OF PROGRAMMING FOR NUMERICAL CONTROL MACHINES THAT IT IS COMMON TO CONFUSE THESE FEATURES. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE THAT IN DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN FULL FLOATING ZERO AND FULL ZERO SHIFT, APPENDIX "C," ATTACHED TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1970, STATES THAT A FLOATING ZERO MACHINE "HAS NO FIXED REFERENCE POINT (OR ZERO POINT) ON THE MACHINE TABLE" AND THAT IN A FLOATING ZERO CONTROL "THE ZERO IS 'ESTABLISHED.'" WE NOTE THE SIMILARITY OF THAT LANGUAGE TO THAT IN PARAGRAPH 3.3.8 WHICH STATES THAT "THE ZERO REFERENCE POINT MAY BE ADJUSTED OVER THE ENTIRE RANGE OF THE CONTROLLED AXIS" AND SPEAKS OF THE ZERO REFERENCE POINT BEING "ESTABLISHED." WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE AIR FORCE POSITION THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSED A FULL FLOATING ZERO FEATURE, REPRESENTING A TECHNICAL DETERMINATION WHICH WE ARE UNABLE TO DISPUTE, IS CONTROLLING. YOU HAVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PARAGRAPH 3.3.8 SPEAKS OF THE "CONTROLLED AXIS" AND YOU STATE THAT THIS REFERS TO THE XZ AXIS AND THAT THE KEARNEY & TRECKER MACHINE IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING THE REFERENCE POINT FOR THE "Y" AXIS. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE THAT PARAGRAPH 3.3.2 STATES THAT "THE CONTROL SYSTEM SHALL CONTROL SINGLE MOVEMENT OR MULTIPLE MOVEMENTS OF THREE AXES (X, Y & Z)." IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE "Y" AXIS IS ONE OF THE CONTROLLED AXES.

ANOTHER RESPECT IN WHICH IT IS CONTENDED THE KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSAL DID NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPINDLE SPEED AND FEED RATE CODING REQUIREMENT. IN THAT REGARD, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDERING DATA FURNISHED UNDER PARAGRAPH 6.2 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDES:

SPEED AND FEED RATE CODING SHALL CONFORM TO ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (EIA) STANDARD RS-274 OR NATIONAL AEROSPACE STANDARD (NAS) 955.

IT IS STATED THAT THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS PROVIDE THAT THE SPEED BE EXPRESSED AT LEAST AS A THREE-DIGIT NUMBER, WHEREAS THE KEARNEY & TRECKER EQUIPMENT WILL ONLY OPERATE ON A TWO-DIGIT CODE. ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRY STANDARD USES PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE IN SETTING FORTH THE DIGIT REQUIREMENT, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ABOVE-QUOTED STATEMENT IN THE ORDERING DATA THAT THE SPEED AND FEED RATE CODING "SHALL CONFORM" TO THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS MAKES THE PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS MANDATORY. HOWEVER, THE AIR FORCE HAS REPORTED THAT TWO DIGIT CODING WOULD BE ADEQUATE FOR ITS NEEDS AND AIR FORCE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL WHO PREPARED THE ORDERING DATA HAVE ADVISED US INFORMALLY THAT DESPITE THE USE OF THE WORDS "SHALL CONFORM" IN THE ORDERING DATA, IT WAS ACTUALLY INTENDED AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THE ORDERING DATA THAT THE PERMISSIVE ASPECT OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO THE SPEED AND FEED CODING SHOULD PREVAIL. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDERING DATA SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A THREE DIGIT CODE, PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE LETTER REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS PROVIDED THAT OFFERORS COULD PROPOSE DEVIATIONS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION; PARAGRAPH 6 ENCOURAGED PROPOSALS PRESENTING "DIFFERENT BASIC APPROACHES;" AND PARAGRAPH 7 STATED THAT AMONG OTHER FACTORS THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WOULD INCLUDE "OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY." THEREFORE, IT WAS APPARENT THAT PROPOSALS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE DETAILS OF THE SPECIFICATION AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF TWO DIGIT OPERATION DOES NOT APPEAR IMPROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SEE 46 COMP. GEN. 34 (1966) AND B-168138, FEBRUARY 17, 1970.

IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE MACHINE PROPOSED BY KEARNEY & TRECKER DOES NOT HAVE AXIS INVERSION CAPABILITY AS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. KEARNEY & TRECKER DID REQUEST IN THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL THAT THE REQUIREMENT BE DELEATED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDREW THE REQUEST IN WRITING DURING THE FIRST STEP.

ANOTHER CONTENTION IS THAT THE KEARNEY & TRECKER MACHINE DOES NOT HAVE AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN AS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. HOWEVER, THE KEARNEY & TRECKER PROPOSAL CONTAINED A STATEMENT THAT THE LATEST GENERATION OF CONTROLS EMPLOYING INTEGRATED CIRCUITRY IS OFFERED.

FINALLY, IT IS STATED THAT THE KEARNEY & TRECKER BROCHURE AND PHOTOGRAPH DESCRIBE A THREE-AXIS CENTER, WHEREAS THE SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRE FOUR AXES. HOWEVER, KEARNEY & TRECKER HAS OFFERED FOUR AXES. THE GOVERNMENT ORDERING DATA STATES, "IN LIEU OF THAT SPECIFIED IN TABLE I THE ROTARY TABLE SHALL BE AUTOMATIC TAPE CONTROLLED (4TH AXIS) WITH CAPABILITIES OF POSITIONING TO ANY ONE OF 360,000 DIVISIONS OR POSITIONS IN 0.001 DEGREE." THE LITERATURE SUBMITTED BY KEARNEY & TRECKER AS A PART OF THE PROPOSAL STATED, "FULL 4-AXIS SIMULTANEOUS CONTOURING CAPABILITY IS OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 360,000 POSITION INDEX TABLE AND THE POSITION CONTOURING OPTIONS."

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE TECHNICAL DETERMINATION MADE THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER'S FIRST-STEP PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTABLE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS STATED IN THE FIRST STEP OF THE PROCUREMENT.

THIS BRINGS US TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SECOND-STEP BID WAS AN ACCEPTABLE LATE BID AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT WAS A QUALIFIED BID THAT SHOULD BE REJECTED. THE SCHEDULED BID OPENING TIME WAS 10 A.M., MONDAY, MAY 18, 1970. AT THAT TIME, THE BID FROM PRATT & WHITNEY WAS THE ONLY BID RECEIVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. THE BID FROM KEARNEY & TRECKER WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER UNTIL 10:45 A.M. THAT DAY. HOWEVER, IT HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN THE MAILROOM OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PREVIOUS DAY, SUNDAY, MAY 17, 1970, AT 9 A.M. THE DELAY IN DELIVERING THE BID TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ABSENCE OF MAIL DISTRIBUTION AT THE BASE OVER THE WEEKEND AND TO THE TIME INVOLVED ON MONDAY MORNING IN DISTRIBUTING MAIL WHICH HAD ACCUMULATED OVER THE WEEKEND. SINCE THE BID HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN THE MAILROOM MORE THAN 24 HOURS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED BID OPENING TIME, THE DELAY IN RECEIPT BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WAS DETERMINED TO BE DUE TO MISHANDLING BY THE GOVERNMENT AFTER RECEIPT AT THE INSTALLATION. HERE THE BID WAS RECEIVED AT THE INSTALLATION THE MORNING OF THE DAY BEFORE THE BID OPENING. IN 42 COMP. GEN. 508 (1963), WE CONSIDERED A CASE WHERE THE BID WAS RECEIVED AT THE INSTALLATION AT 5:20 A.M. THE SAME MORNING AS THE BID OPENING SCHEDULED FOR 10:30 A.M., BUT WAS NOT DELIVERED TO THE BID ROOM UNTIL AFTER BID OPENING. WE HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE LATE RECEIPT OF THE BID AT THE BID ROOM WAS DUE SOLELY TO MISHANDLING BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN THAT CONNECTION, AT PAGE 512, IT WAS STATED:

*** IN FACT, IF BIDS INVITED TO BE SENT BY MAIL ARE TO BE REQUIRED TO BE AT A PARTICULAR ROOM OR OFFICE BY THE TIME SET FOR OPENING, ALTHOUGH DELIVERIES OF MAIL BY POSTAL EMPLOYEES MUST BE MADE AT DIFFERENT POINT, WE FEEL THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWES TO ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS A DUTY TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES CALCULATED TO INSURE THAT THE PHYSICAL TRANSMISSION OF BIDS FROM THE ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY DELAYED.

IN VIEW THEREOF, THE DETERMINATION TO OPEN THE LATE BID FROM KEARNEY & TRECKER DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER.

THE BID FROM KEARNEY & TRECKER WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER WHICH, INSOFAR AS PERTINENT, STATED:

ENCLOSED IS OUR RESPONSE TO THE SUBJECT BID REQUEST. WE ARE PLEASED TO QUOTE OUR STANDARD MILWAUKEE-MATIC SERIES EB MACHINING CENTER.

WE HAVE INCLUDED OUR STANDARD PROPOSAL COVERING THE PRICING FOR THE MACHINE AND ALL OPTIONS, ALONG WITH A BROCHURE WHICH CONTAINS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SERIES EB. WE HAVE ALSO ENCLOSED TWO (2) COPIES OF ALL MANUALS NORMALLY SUPPLIED WITH THE MACHINE. IT IS CONTENDED THAT KEARNEY & TRECKER QUALIFIED ITS BID BY THE STATEMENT IN THE LETTER THAT IT IS QUOTING THE "STANDARD" MILWAUKEE-MATIC SERIES EB MACHINING CENTER AND BY THE LITERATURE AND MANUALS SUPPLIED WITH THE BID. IN THAT REGARD, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LITERATURE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID DOES NOT CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS AND DEMONSTRATES AN INTENTION TO FURNISH SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE MANUALS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MACHINE WILL NOT MEET THE GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS. IN THAT REGARD, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE MANUALS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AS COMMERCIAL DATA WHICH THE INVITATION STATED WAS REQUIRED "FOR EVALUATION." YOU HAVE CITED A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A BID IS REQUIRED TO BE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE WHEN LITERATURE, UNSOLICITED OR NOT, SUBMITTED WITH THE BID SHOWS AN INTENT TO QUALIFY THE BID OR CREATES AN AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT THE BIDDER INTENDS TO FURNISH. THOSE DECISIONS DEAL WITH THE USUAL FORMALLY ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT - NOT A TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT.

AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE FIRST-STEP PROPOSAL OF KEARNEY & TRECKER, AS MODIFIED, WAS APPROVED AS ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE BY KEARNEY & TRECKER IN ITS COVER LETTER TRANSMITTING ITS BID UNDER THE SECOND STEP MUST BE READ AGAINST THAT BACKGROUND. POINTED OUT IN 45 COMP. GEN. 221, 224 (1965), IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT A QUALIFIED BIDDER WOULD GO TO THE EFFORT AND EXPENSE OF PREPARING AN ACCEPTABLE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL IN THE FIRST STEP ONLY TO DISQUALIFY ITSELF IN THE SECOND STEP BY DEVIATING FROM ITS ACCEPTED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COVER LETTER OR THE UNSOLICITED LITERATURE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTION UPON THE FIRST-STEP PROPOSAL THAT WAS APPROVED, BUT RATHER SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE TWO ACCEPTED FIRST-STEP PROPOSALS IT WAS PRICING IN THE SECOND STEP. ALTHOUGH THE MANUALS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE BID FOR EVALUATION, AFPI71-531-(19), WHICH WAS SUPPLIED BY AMENDMENT TO THE INVITATION, INDICATES THAT THE MANUALS WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF "DETERMINING THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY OF SUCH DATA." THUS, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE MANUALS WERE NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE MACHINE MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS. THEREFORE, ANY DEVIATION IN THE DATA CONTAINED IN THE MANUALS DOES NOT, IN OUR VIEW, CONSTITUTE A QUALIFICATION FATAL TO THE BID. IN THAT CONNECTION, WE NOTE THAT AFPI71- 531-(19A, WHICH ALSO WAS A PART OF THE INVITATION, PROVIDES THAT THE MANUALS MAY BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCORPORATE MINOR CHANGES TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR AIR FORCE USE.