B-165569, FEB. 19, 1969
Highlights
INCORPORATED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 31. WAS THE BIDDER PARTIALLY RIGHT IN HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE? IF THE BIDDER WAS EVEN 1 PERCENT RIGHT THEN YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR DECISION AND HAVE ALL BIDS ON ITEMS 34 AND 35 REJECTED AND ITEMS REPROCURED.'. YOU ALSO ALLEGE ANEW THAT "ON THE ORIGINAL BID THE ITEMS REQUIRING SAMPLES WERE NOT THE SAME AS THE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BIDDERS WHO ONLY BID ON PART OF THE ENTIRE BID TO BE REQUIRED TO COMPARE ALL THE NUMBERS TO INDUCE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE LIST OF REQUIRED SAMPLES AND THE LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES.'. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT. SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ AS A WHOLE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE.
B-165569, FEB. 19, 1969
TO JUST US ROE AND SONS, INCORPORATED:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 31, 1969, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-165569, JANUARY 30, 1969, WHICH DENIED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR BID ON ITEMS 34 AND 35 UNDER GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. FPNTH C-70179-7-31 -68, FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT BID SAMPLES.
ESSENTIALLY YOUR LETTER RESTATES YOUR PRIOR POSITION IN THIS MATTER THAT THE FIRST LINE OF THE BID SAMPLES REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE GOVERNED THE SPECIFIC ITEMS REQUIRING SAMPLES. YOU ALSO MAINTAIN THAT OUR DECISION DID NOT CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: "WHAT CAUSED THE CONFUSION? WAS THE BIDDER PARTIALLY RIGHT IN HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE? IF SO, HOW MUCH RIGHT, 10 PERCENT, 20 PERCENT, 50 PERCENT OR EVEN 2 PERCENT. IF THE BIDDER WAS EVEN 1 PERCENT RIGHT THEN YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR DECISION AND HAVE ALL BIDS ON ITEMS 34 AND 35 REJECTED AND ITEMS REPROCURED.' YOU ALSO ALLEGE ANEW THAT "ON THE ORIGINAL BID THE ITEMS REQUIRING SAMPLES WERE NOT THE SAME AS THE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BIDDERS WHO ONLY BID ON PART OF THE ENTIRE BID TO BE REQUIRED TO COMPARE ALL THE NUMBERS TO INDUCE THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE LIST OF REQUIRED SAMPLES AND THE LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES.'
YOUR RELIANCE ON ONLY THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE WOULD LEAVE LITTLE ROOM FOR CONJECTURE AS TO THE REASON WHY YOU FAILED TO SUBMIT SAMPLES ON ITEMS 34 AND 35. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT, AS WE UNDERSTAND, YOU DID NOT, BEING A PARTIAL BIDDER, CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO SCRUTINIZE THE REMAINING LANGUAGE OF THE BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE. NEVERTHELESS, THE INVITATION, AS AMENDED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ AS A WHOLE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, AND ALL BIDDERS MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ON NOTICE OF THE REQUIREMENTS STATED IN THE ENTIRE BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE, WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THAT LANGUAGE OR NOT. SEE FOR COMPARISON B-138407, FEBRUARY 13, 1959.
WE THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, IS CLEAR ENOUGH TO PUT BIDDERS ON NOTICE OF WHAT IS DESIRED, NAMELY, THAT PARTIAL BIDDERS NOT SUBMITTING REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE ITEMS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SAMPLE OF THE ITEMS ACTUALLY BID ON. ..END :