B-142253, AUG. 2, 1960
Highlights
YOU INQUIRE WHY YOUR CASE IS NOT PARALLEL. THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS CONSIDERED IN B-141562 THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC NOTICE TO BIDDERS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA REQUIREMENT WOULD RESULT IN REJECTION OF BIDS.
B-142253, AUG. 2, 1960
TO MANHATTAN LIGHTING EQUIPMENT CO., INC.:
IN LETTERS OF JUNE 7 AND JULY 23, 1960, YOU REFER TO PAGE 9 OF THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR REPORTING DECISION B-141562 OF APRIL 7, 1960, (39 COMP. GEN. 684) UPHOLDING AN AWARD TO A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT FURNISH WITH ITS BID DESCRIPTIVE DATA CALLED FOR IN THE INVITATION TO BID, AND YOU INQUIRE WHY YOUR CASE IS NOT PARALLEL.
THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS CONSIDERED IN B-141562 THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC NOTICE TO BIDDERS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA REQUIREMENT WOULD RESULT IN REJECTION OF BIDS, WHEREAS IN YOUR CASE THE INVITATION FOCUSED ATTENTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DESCRIPTIVE DATA BY USE OF CAPITAL TYPE AND POSITIVE TERMS STATING THAT THE BID WOULD BE REJECTED FOR FAILURE TO DESCRIBE IN FULL BY ATTACHMENTS TO THE BID THE "OR EQUAL" ITEM OFFERED.
ACCORDINGLY, YOUR BID WHICH FAILED TO INCLUDE THE REQUIRED DESCRIPTIVE DATA NECESSARY FOR EVALUATION OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED HAD TO BE REJECTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION WHICH SO CLEARLY SPELLED OUT THE EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE.