B-231593, Aug 10, 1988, 88-2 CPD 128
Highlights
The government is not precluded from accepting that offer which meets the specifications. 790 was in conformance with the specifications. Edling argues that B & B's bid was nonresponsive because the IFB did not allow submission of alternate bids. One which will meet the specifications and the other which will not. The government is not precluded from accepting that offer which will meet the specifications. The protest is denied.
B-231593, Aug 10, 1988, 88-2 CPD 128
PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Alternate offers - Acceptance - Propriety DIGEST: Even though the solicitation does not authorize the submission of alternate bids, when a bidder submits a bid containing two offers, one which meets the specifications and the other which does not, the government is not precluded from accepting that offer which meets the specifications.
Edling Electric, Inc.:
Edling Electric, Inc., protests any award of a contract to B & B Electric, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F32604-88-B0012, issued by the Air Force for the removal and replacement of electrical distribution lines in the military family housing area of Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. Edling contends that B & B's bid should be rejected as nonresponsive because, in addition to containing a price for the performance of the work in accordance with the IFB specifications, it contained an alternate price for the performance of the work using certain nonconforming equipment.
We deny the protest.
B & B submitted the low total bid price of $381,790 for the work as set forth in the specifications. In addition to this price, B & B's bid included a handwritten notation offering to reduce the bid by $30,000 if the Air Force accepted 1-compartment transformers rather than the 2- compartment transformers required by the IFB specifications. The contracting officer determined B & B's offer of alternate equipment to be nonresponsive. However, since B & B's basic bid of $381,790 was in conformance with the specifications, the contracting officer concluded that an award based on that price would be proper. Edling submitted the next low, responsive bid of $412,800.
Edling argues that B & B's bid was nonresponsive because the IFB did not allow submission of alternate bids. We disagree. Even though an IFB does not provide for the submission of alternate bids, where a bidder submits a bid containing two offers, one which will meet the specifications and the other which will not, the government is not precluded from accepting that offer which will meet the specifications. Sidings Unlimited, 65 Comp.Gen. 130 (1985), 85-2 CPD Para. 686. Thus, an award to B & B based upon its basic bid would be proper.
The protest is denied.