Skip to main content

[Protests of Cancellation of Army IFB and Allegedly Restrictive Subsequent Procurement]

B-209684,B-210466 Published: Aug 25, 1983. Publicly Released: Aug 25, 1983.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested the cancellation of an Army invitation for bids (IFB) for the supply and installation of hospital equipment and the allegedly restrictive specifications of the subsequent procurement for the same requirement. The Army canceled the first IFB, because none of the bids received in response to the solicitation were responsive to all of the solicitation specifications. GAO determined that the Army properly rejected the protester's bid as nonresponsive, because it could not be determined from the accompanying descriptive material whether the protester's equipment would meet all of the IFB specifications. Further, it was evident that the protester's equipment clearly did not meet one specification. Since no one had challenged the Army's determination that all of the other bids received were also nonresponsive, GAO held that the cancellation of the IFB was proper. With respect to the resolicitation, which included essentially the same salient characteristics, the protester contended that one requirement was unduly restrictive of competition. However, the Army rejected the protester's bid under this IFB because its literature indicated that its equipment failed to comply with a number of salient characteristics. Further, the Army stated that all of the bids received in response to this solicitation were also determined to be nonresponsive and the second solicitation, too, was canceled. GAO found that it was not necessary to consider the issue of the protester's objection to one allegedly restrictive requirement, since its bid was determined to be nonresponsive on several bases. Thus, even if the one requirement were determined to be unduly restrictive, the Army would still have properly rejected the protester's bid on the other bases, to which the protester did not object. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bid protestsBid responsivenessDefective solicitationsResolicitationSolicitation cancellation protestsSolicitationsU.S. ArmyDescriptive literatureBid evaluation protestsSpecificationsProcurementBiddersSolicitation specificationsProtests