B-157219, SEP. 14, 1965

B-157219, SEP. 14, 1965

TO VOM BAUR, BERESFORD AND COBURN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION B-157219 OF AUGUST 30, 1965, WHICH DENIED THE PROTEST MADE BY YOU ON BEHALF OF DIEBOLD, INC., UNDER VETERANS ADMINISTRATION INVITATION FOR BIDS M7-40-65.

THE BASIS FOR THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT, IF DIEBOLD WAS NONRESPONSIVE FOR SOME OF THE UNITS LISTED IN ITEMS 1 AND 3 OF THE INVITATION, THOSE UNITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE OTHER BIDDER WHO WAS RESPONSIVE AND THE REMAINING UNITS IN THOSE ITEMS UPON WHICH DIEBOLD WAS LOW AND RESPONSIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DIEBOLD, INSTEAD OF ALL THE UNITS IN EACH OF THE TWO ITEMS BEING AWARDED TO THE OTHER BIDDER. YOU SUGGEST THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN PARAGRAPH 8 (C), WHICH WAS QUOTED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, REQUIRES THAT RESULT.

HOWEVER, SPECIAL PROVISION 2, AS CHANGED BY INVITATION FOR BIDS AMENDMENT 2, ALSO QUOTED IN OUR EARLIER DECISION, PROVIDED THAT AWARD "WILL" FOLLOW ONE OF THREE ALTERNATIVE METHODS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE ITEM METHOD. NONE OF THE METHODS IN SPECIAL PROVISION 2 WAS A UNIT METHOD.

IN VIEW THEREOF, THE AWARD MADE ON THE BASIS OF RESPONSIVENESS TO THE ENTIRE ITEMS INVOLVED DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER.