B-166170, NOVEMBER 24, 1969, 49 COMP. GEN. 330

B-166170, NOVEMBER 24, 1969, 49 COMP. GEN. 330

BIDS -- DISCARDING ALL BIDS -- COMPELLING REASONS ONLY THE CANCELLATION OF AN INVITATION FOR BIDS THAT CONTEMPLATED A 1-YEAR REQUIREMENTS TYPE CONTRACT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS AND ASKED BIDDERS TO QUOTE A DISCOUNT FROM PRICE LISTS INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION, OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO QUOTE SEPARATE DISCOUNTS ON "COMMON PARTS" AND "CAPTIVE PARTS" WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS THAT THE BIDS RECEIVED COULD NOT BE EVALUATED AS BIDDERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO COMMIT THEMSELVES TO ANY PRICE LISTS PRIOR TO BID OPENING, AND THAT THE LOW BID OFFERING 20 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT DISCOUNTS WAS UNBALANCED. ABSENT AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS COULD NOT BE SATISFIED, THERE WAS NO "COMPELLING REASON" WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF PARAGRAPH 2-404.1 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION FOR DISCARDING THE BIDS, AND AS BID UNBALANCING PER SC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PRECLUDE AWARD, THE LOW BID SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. BIDS -- UNBALANCED -- EVIDENCE A LOW BID TO FURNISH MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS THAT OFFERED A 20 PERCENT DISCOUNT ON "COMMON PARTS" AVAILABLE FROM SEVERAL SOURCES AND 50 PERCENT ON "CAPTIVE PARTS" PROCURED FROM MANUFACTURERS OR FRANCHISED DEALERS, IS NOT AN UNBALANCED BID PER SC AUTOMATICALLY PRECLUDING AN AWARD TO THE BIDDER IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE DISCOUNTS OFFERED CONSTITUTED AN IRREGULARITY THAT AFFECTED FAIR AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND, THEREFORE, THE LOW BID MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH APPROPRIATE INVITATION SAFEGUARDS TO DISCOURAGE THE SUBMISSION OF UNBALANCED BIDS BASED ON SPECULATION AS TO WHICH ITEMS ARE PURCHASED IN GREATER QUANTITIES, AND THE CONTRACTING AGENCY TO ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE WILL REQUIRE BIDDERS TO CITE ONLY ONE DISCOUNT ON BOTH COMMON AND CAPTIVE PARTS.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, NOVEMBER 24, 1969:

BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 1969, THE CHIEF, PROCUREMENT OPERATIONS DIVISION, DCS/S&L, FURNISHED A DOCUMENTED REPORT TO OUR OFFICE ON THE PROTEST OF DOVER AUTO ELECTRIC, INC. (DOVER), AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. F07603-69-B-0146, ISSUED DECEMBER 23, 1968, BY THE BASE PROCUREMENT OFFICE, DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, DELAWARE. THE IFB WAS CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION B-166170, APRIL 4, 1969, TO WHEELER BROTHERS, INC. (WHEELER), WHEREIN WE DENIED WHEELER'S PROTEST CONCERNING THE PROPER EVALUATION OF THE PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT IN THE DOVER BID AND FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED AWARD TO DOVER WAS "FULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS AND STATUTES, AS WELL AS WITH THE TERMS OF THE SUBJECT INVITATION."

THE IFB CONTEMPLATES A 1-YEAR REQUIREMENTS TYPE CONTRACT FOR SUPPLYING MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS FOR REPAIR AND SERVICING OF AUTOMOBILE VEHICLES AT DOVER AIR FORCE BASE. THE SCHEDULE OF ITEMS APPEARS UNDER ITEM E ON PAGE 5 OF THE BID SCHEDULE. ITEM I, ENTITLED BASIC BID, REQUIRED THE BIDDERS TO QUOTE A DISCOUNT FROM RETAIL PRICES FOR ALL PARTS AND ACCESSORIES LISTED IN PRICE LISTS INCLUDED IN APPENDIX B, WHICH IS A SIX PAGE INDEX OF MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PRICE LISTS IDENTIFIED BY EACH MANUFACTURER'S NAME, BY PART OR PARTS, AND, IN MOST INSTANCES BY DATE. AS AN ALTERNATE, SEPARATE DISCOUNTS COULD BE QUOTED ON "COMMON PARTS" AND "CAPTIVE PARTS," COMMON PARTS BEING DEFINED IN THE BID SCHEDULE AS THOSE AVAILABLE FROM SEVERAL LISTED SOURCES, AND CAPTIVE PARTS AS THOSE AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR HIS FRANCHISED DEALERS WITHOUT SUBSTITUTION.

ITEM II REQUIRED AN HOURLY RATE CHARGE FOR OPERATION OF STORE DURING NONDUTY HOURS FOR AN ESTIMATED 100 HOURS.

ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF PURCHASES OF EACH CLASS OF PARTS WERE STATED, AND THE INVITATION PROVIDED FOR AN AGGREGATE AWARD ON THE BASIS OF NET PRICE AFTER DISCOUNT FOR ITEMS I AND II, OR FOR ITEMS IA, IB AND II.

ITEM III PROVIDED FOR FURNISHING OF "NON-PRICE-LISTED" ITEMS, WHICH ARE DEFINED AS PARTS WHICH ARE EITHER NOT LISTED IN ANY PUBLISHED PRICE LISTS OR ARE CONTAINED IN A PRICE LIST NOT MADE A PART OF THE CONTRACT (I.E., NOT IN APPENDIX B). PAYMENT FOR SUCH PARTS WAS TO BE MADE AT INVOICE COST TO THE CONTRACTOR LESS ALL DISCOUNTS, PLUS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND A FIXED SCHEDULE OF MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES PRESCRIBED IN ITEM G, WHICH VARIED ACCORDING TO TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF NON-PRICE LISTED ITEMS FURNISHED DURING THE MONTH. NO ESTIMATE OF PURCHASES WAS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH ITEM.

ITEM H OF THE BID SCHEDULE, ENTITLED "PARTS PRICE LISTS AND BIDDING," PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

PARTS PRICE LISTS AND BIDDING. PARTS PRICE LISTS MUST BE DESIGNATED TO COVER NEW, REBUILT, AND EXCHANGE PARTS THAT ARE SO LISTED BY PARTS MANUFACTURERS, REBUILDERS, OR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS FOR THE VEHICLE FLEET LISTED HEREIN. THE PRICE CHARGED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR PARTS ON PRICE LISTS UNDER THIS CONTRACT WILL BE SUGGESTED RETAIL LIST PRICE CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE PRICE LIST IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, LESS THE DISCOUNT OFFERED UNDER BID SCHEDULE--SCHEDULE OF ITEMS. BIDS WILL BE BASED ONLY UPON THIS AGGREGATE APPROVED LIST. (APPENDIX B). BIDS QUALIFIED TO DELETE FURNISHING PARTS OR SUPPLIES FOR ANY OF THE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT LISTED HEREIN WILL BE CONSIDERED NON RESPONSIVE. ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE IN THE ON-BASE STORE ONE COPY OF EACH PRICE LIST, EXTRACTED FROM THE AMENDMENT REFERENCED ABOVE, WHICH HE INTENDS TO USE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. SAID LIST SHALL BE CURRENT AS OF THE DATE OF AWARD. AFTER AWARD, ADDITIONAL REQUIRED LISTS MAY BE USED UPON MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. PRICES PAID FOR PARTS WILL CONSTITUTE FULL COMPENSATION FOR LABOR, PARTS, OVERHEAD, PROFIT AND/OR OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHARGES FOR NONDUTY HOUR OPERATIONS OR NON -PRICE-LISTED ITEMS WHICH ARE COVERED AS SEPARATE ITEMS OF THE BID SCHEDULE.

ITEM WW READS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

CONTRACTUAL CONTENTS: THIS INVITATION FOR BIDS CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED DOCUMENTS WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN ANY CONTRACT AWARDED AS A RESULT OF THIS IFB:

(D) APPENDIX B, APPROVED CONSOLIDATED INDEX OF MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PARTS PRICE LISTS, DATED 29 NOVEMBER 1968.

THE THREE BIDS RECEIVED BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY WERE OPENED ON JANUARY 21, 1969, AS SCHEDULED, AND WERE EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IFB PROVISIONS, AND THE APPARENT LOW BID WAS THAT OF DOVER, WHO SUBMITTED AN AGGREGATE EVALUATED BID OF $159,168 ON THE ALTERNATE ITEMS AS FOLLOWS: 20 PERCENT DISCOUNT ON ITEM IA COMMON PARTS AND 50 PERCENT ON ITEM IB CAPTIVE PARTS.

BY TELEGRAM OF FEBRUARY 12 WHEELER, THE SECOND LOW BIDDER, PROTESTED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S PROPOSED AWARD TO DOVER. AFTER OUR DENIAL OF THE PROTEST IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 4, 1969, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECOMMENDED AWARD TO DOVER AND FORWARDED THE CONTRACT FILE TO HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND (MAC), SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. MAC, HOWEVER, DISAPPROVED THE PROPOSED AWARD BY MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 3, 1969, AND IN LINE WITH MAC'S INSTRUCTIONS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ADVISED EACH BIDDER BY LETTER DATED JUNE 13 THAT THE IFB WOULD BE CANCELED AND THE REQUIREMENT READVERTISED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

A. INASMUCH AS THE IFB DID NOT REQUIRE BIDDERS TO COMMIT THEMSELVES TO ANY PRICE LISTS PRIOR TO BID OPENING, THE BIDS CANNOT BE PROPERLY EVALUATED.

B. STATISTICS COMPILED BY AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND IN RESPONSE TO THEIR SEPT. 1968 SURVEY CLEARLY SHOW THAT DISCOUNTS OF 20% FOR COMMON PARTS AND 50% FOR CAPTIVE PARTS ARE UNBALANCED UNLESS THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY PRICING FACTORS.

BY LETTERS DATED JUNE 17 AND 23, 1969, COPIES OF WHICH WERE FURNISHED TO OUR OFFICE, DOVER PROTESTED TO THE PROCURING ACTIVITY AGAINST THE MAC DECISION TO READVERTISE THE PROCUREMENT AFTER THE BIDS HAD BEEN OPENED. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROTEST IS THAT THE IFB REQUIRES COMMITMENT TO THE PRICE LIST IN APPENDIX B AND CLEARLY STATES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUPPLEMENTING SUCH PRICE LISTS AFTER AWARD. FURTHER, DOVER TAKES ISSUE WITH THE ARGUMENT BY MAC THAT ITS BID, WITH THE 20 PERCENT DISCOUNT ON COMMON PARTS AND THE 50 PERCENT DISCOUNT ON CAPTIVE PARTS, IS UNBALANCED, ON THE PREMISE THAT SUCH ARGUMENT IS NOT RELEVANT INASMUCH AS THE IFB ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT AWARD WOULD BE GRANTED TO THE LOW DOLLAR BIDDER.

THE REPORT ON DOVER'S PROTEST INDICATES THAT THE IDENTICAL REQUIREMENT IS TO BE READVERTISED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORMAT AS THE SUBJECT IFB, INCLUDING AN APPENDIX B, WITH ONLY MAJOR CHANGE OCCURRING IN ITEM H. MAC PROPOSES TO AMEND THIS CLAUSE TO ALLOW BIDDERS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL PRICE LISTS TO THE LISTS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B, PRIOR TO BID OPENING. UPON RECEIPT OF THESE LISTS, THE SOLICITATION WOULD BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THEM IN AN AGGREGATE APPROVED PRICE LIST SCHEDULE, AND BIDDER'S WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY IN THEIR BIDS THOSE PRICE LISTS IN APPENDIX B, AS AMENDED, WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO USE UNDER THE CONTRACT. ALSO, BIDDERS COULD CITE ONLY ONE DISCOUNT FOR COMMON AND CAPTIVE PARTS. ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WOULD BIND THE CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH ALL COMMON PARTS FROM PRICE LISTS INCLUDED IN, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED TO, THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY PRICE LIST TO COVER PARTICULAR COMMON PARTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE PARTS WILL BE TREATED AS NON-PRICE-LISTED PARTS.

THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION AND AWARD IN FORMAL ADVERTISING CAN BE SAID TO EMBODY TWO CONSIDERATIONS: (1) THAT BIDS SHOULD BE EVALUATED AND CONTRACTS AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF BIDDERS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM, AND (2) THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OBTAIN THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS CONTRACT POSSIBLE. SEE 10 U.S.C. 2305; NASH AND CIBINIC, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT LAW (1966) P. 198. THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS AFTER OPENING IS OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE THE PUBLICIZING OF BIDS WITHOUT AWARD TENDS TO DISCOURAGE COMPETITION, THUS COMPROMISING THE FIRST CONSIDERATION CITED ABOVE. FOR THIS REASON, REJECTION OF BIDS AND CANCELLATION OF AN INVITATION AFTER BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED ARE NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT COMPELLING REASONS. SEE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 2-404.1; ALSO, 36 COMP. GEN. 62 (1956).

MAC'S ARGUMENT FOR READVERTISEMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT IN THIS INSTANCE IS THREEFOLD. FIRST, MAC CLAIMS THAT ITEM H IN ITS PRESENT CONTEXT IS NOT CLEAR AND DOES NOT COMMIT THE BIDDERS TO THE USE OF ANY PRICE LISTS WITH THE RESULTS THAT (1) THE BIDS CANNOT BE PROPERLY EVALUATED AND (2) MANY PARTS FOR WHICH DISCOUNTS ARE BID AGAINST PRICE LIST ESTIMATES MAY ULTIMATELY FALL INTO THE NON-PRICE-LISTED PARTS CATEGORY THEREBY RENDERING THE PROFFERED DISCOUNTS FICTITIOUS. SECOND, MAC ARGUES, EVEN IF ITEM H COULD BE INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING BIDDERS TO USE ALL OF THE PRICE LISTS IN APPENDIX B, THIS IS NOT PRACTICAL SINCE ALL SUCH LISTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THIRD, MAC CONTENDS THAT THE LOW DOVER BID IS UNBALANCED IN VIEW OF THE HIGH DISCOUNT OFFERED ON CAPTIVE PARTS SINCE IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MUCH HIGHER DISCOUNTS CAN BE EXPECTED FOR COMMON PARTS THAN FOR CAPTIVE PARTS.

ON THE ISSUE OF THE BASIS FOR EVALUATION OF BIDS, ITEM H REQUIRES THAT BIDS BE BASED ON THE PRICE LISTS IN APPENDIX B, AND ITEM E STATES THAT "DISCOUNTS *** ARE FROM SUGGESTED RETAIL LIST PRICE *** IN CONTRACT PRICE LISTS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX B." WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH PROVISIONS PROVIDE A REALISTIC BASIS FOR BIDDING AND FOR THE PROPER EVALUATION OF BIDS. FURTHER, NO BIDDER RAISED ANY QUESTION AS TO SUCH PROVISIONS, AND IT APPEARS THAT ALL BIDDERS BASED THEIR DISCOUNTS ON THE APPENDIX B PRICE LISTS AND CONSEQUENTLY MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING BID ON A COMMON BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE POSITION OF MAC THAT THERE WAS NO COMMON, FIXED, EQUAL BASIS FOR BIDDING.

AS TO THE ARGUMENT THAT BIDDERS WERE NOT COMMITTED TO ANY PRICE LISTS, WHICH RESTS ON THE ASSERTED INADEQUACY OR AMBIGUITY OF ITEM H, WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH SUCH VIEW. A PRIMARY RULE OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES THAT THE MEANING OF A CONTRACT BE GATHERED FROM THE INSTRUMENT AS A WHOLE AND THAT ALL PROVISIONS BE GIVEN EFFECT IF POSSIBLE WITH NO PROVISION BEING CONSTRUED AS BEING IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER UNLESS NO OTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IS POSSIBLE. HOL-GAR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION V UNITED STATES, 351 F. 2D 972, 979 (1965), AND COURT CASES CITED THEREIN. IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF ITEM WW INCORPORATING INTO ANY CONTRACT AWARDED UNDER THE IFB THE PRICE LISTS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B WITHOUT STATING ANY EXCEPTIONS, WHICH PROVISION ALSO WAS NOT QUESTIONED BY ANY BIDDER PRIOR TO BID OPENING, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT ABSENT ANY OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE IFB PROVIDING THAT A BIDDER COULD ELECT TO BIND HIMSELF TO LESS THAN ALL OF THE APPENDIX B PRICE LISTS, BIDDERS WERE BOUND TO USE ALL OF SUCH PRICE LISTS UNLESS THE BIDS INDICATED OTHERWISE, IN WHICH CASE THE BIDS WOULD HAVE BEEN NONRESPONSIVE TO THE IFB. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THE THREE BIDDERS LISTED ANY EXCEPTIONS TO APPENDIX B IN THEIR BIDS.

IN LINE WITH THE FOREGOING, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT PAST EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT ALL PRICE LISTS IN APPENDIX B ARE NOT AVAILABLE AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THE EXPOSED BIDS. RATHER, WE BELIEVE THAT NOTHING LESS THAN AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT NEITHER THE LOW BIDDER NOR ANY OF THE OTHER BIDDERS WILL BE ABLE TO FULFILL THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS, I.E. SUPPORT OF THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT LISTED IN APPENDIX A, FROM THE APPENDIX B PRICE LISTS WILL SATISFY THE "COMPELLING REASONS" REQUIREMENT OF ASPR 2 404.1 SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION DIRECTED BY MAC.

AS TO MAC'S POSITION THAT THE LOW BID IS UNBALANCED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DISCOUNT OFFERED ON CAPTIVE PARTS IS HIGHER THAN THE DISCOUNT OFFERED ON COMMON PARTS, REFERENCE TO THE STATISTICS COMPILED BY THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WHICH MAC CITES AS SUPPORT FOR ITS POSITION, SHOWS THAT IN 1964 THE DISCOUNTS RANGED FROM 5 TO 57 PERCENT ON COMMON PARTS AND FROM 5 TO 25 PERCENT ON CAPTIVE PARTS, WHILE IN 1968 THE FIGURES WERE 10 TO 58 PERCENT ON COMMON PARTS AND 5 TO 30 PERCENT ON CAPTIVE PARTS. FURTHER, WHILE IN MOST INSTANCES THE CAPTIVE PARTS DISCOUNTS WERE LOWER THAN THE COMMON PARTS DISCOUNTS, THE 1968 STATISTICS SHOW THAT THREE ACTIVITIES (EDWARDS, CHARLETON AND MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASES) REPORTED CAPTIVE DISCOUNTS WHICH WERE EQUAL TO OR HIGHER THAN THE COMMON DISCOUNTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE DISCOUNT STATISTICS ALONE JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT DOVER'S BID IS UNBALANCED. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH MAC HAS ATTACHED SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY DOVER'S BID, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT ALL FACTORS CONSIDERED, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1964, FROM AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND TO THE PROCURING ACTIVITIES ON THE MATTER OF CONTRACTS FOR OPERATION OF ON-BASE MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR STORES, THE PRICES QUOTED BY DOVER ARE NOT REASONABLE. AS TO THE MATTER OF UNBALANCED BIDS GENERALLY, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCOURAGE, THROUGH APPROPRIATE INVITATION SAFEGUARDS, THE SUBMISSION OF UNBALANCED BIDS BASED ON SPECULATION AS TO WHICH ITEMS ARE PURCHASED IN GREATER QUANTITIES. 38 COMP. GEN. 572 (1959). HOWEVER, BID UNBALANCING PER SE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY OPERATE TO INVALIDATE AN AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO A BIDDER. SEE B-161928, AUGUST 8, 1967. FURTHER, THE IFB PROVIDED FOR SEPARATE DISCOUNTS ON COMMON PARTS AND CAPTIVE PARTS AT THE OPTION OF THE BIDDERS, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT DOVER'S DISCOUNTS ON THESE TWO KINDS OF PARTS CONSTITUTED IRREGULARITY OF SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE AS TO AFFECT FAIR AND COMPETITIVE BIDDING. SEE B-164736, DECEMBER 2, 1968. (WE NOTE THAT THE MAC PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM OF UNBALANCED BIDS BY REQUIRING BIDDERS TO CITE ONLY ONE DISCOUNT FOR BOTH COMMON AND CAPTIVE PARTS IN A REVISED IFB MAY EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM.)

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EXISTING RECORD JUSTIFIES DISCARDING OF THE BIDS AND READVERTISEMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT. ACCORDINGLY, UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED THAT OTHER VALID REASONS EXISTS FOR THE REJECTION OF DOVER'S BID, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.

WE ARE TRANSMITTING A COPY OF THIS DECISION TO THE PROTESTING BIDDER. THE FILE FORWARDED WITH THE REPORT OF AUGUST 18 IS RETURNED.