[Protest of Air Force Rejection of Bid for Heat Treating Furnaces]

A firm protested the Air Force's rejection of its low bid as nonresponsive under a two-step procurement, contending that: (1) the questions raised by the Air Force were mere technicalities which did not provide a sufficient basis for the rejection of its bid; (2) its original proposal obligated it to comply with the terms of the solicitation; and (3) the standard terms and conditions of its bid only applied where they did not conflict with the solicitation. GAO noted that: (1) the contracting officer determined that the protester's bid was nonresponsive because it qualified its price and delivery terms; (2) the protester's bid prices indicated that items would be shipped free on board (f.o.b.) origin rather than f.o.b. destination as required by the solicitation; and (3) the protester submitted a detailed schedule requiring progress payments on specific dates and indicated that a 180-day warranty would be provided rather than the 12-month warranty required by the solicitation. GAO found that: (1) objectionable conditions in a bid may not be ignored if they affect the substance of the bid; (2) the submission of prices based on f.o.b. origin rather than f.o.b. destination constituted a sufficient basis for the Air Force's nonresponsiveness determination and subsequent bid rejection; (3) the exception taken to the delivery requirement was a material one affecting the substance of the bid; and (4) the technical acceptability of the protester's initial proposal was not related to price, which was the reason for the submission of bids under step two of the procurement. Accordingly, the protest was denied.