Interpretation of Descriptive Literature Clause in Solicitation

The protester objected to the cancellation of an invitation for bids and to the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive. The protester reasonably interpreted the descriptive literature clause as not requiring a statement by the bidder acknowledging the 1-year warranty obligation, and the rejection of its bid on that basis was not justified. The agency's requirement that bidders' descriptive literature reiterate their obligation to provide manuals provided no greater assurance that the Government's needs would be satisfied and unnecessarily increased the chances that bids would be found nonresponsive. The solicitation was defective in that it failed to set out in a manner as detailed as practical the nature and extent of the descriptive literature requirement. The canceled invitation should be readvertised in accordance with the descriptive literature requirements contained in the Federal Procurement Regulations.