B-169622, JAN 4, 1971

B-169622, JAN 4, 1971

BID PROTEST - BIDDER RESPONSIVENESS DENIAL OF PROTEST AGAINST CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND LEASE OF 16 TEN-PIN, AUTOMATIC PIN-SPOTTER MACHINES AT FORT CLAYTON AND FORT GULICK, CANAL ZONE AND AWARD TO BRUNSWICK CORPORATION. WHERE THE INVITATION REQUIRED THAT THE MACHINES FURNISHED MUST BE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY MODEL 82-45, OR EQUAL, UNDER THE ASPR, THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE EQUALITY OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND WHERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT SUCH FEATURES AS 13-1/2 - 14 SECOND BALL RETURN TIME, AUTOMATIC FOUL RECYCLING SERVICE AND PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT PINS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE BRUNSWICK MODEL CAN BE CONSIDERED EQUAL IN ALL SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS. FURTHER, PROTESTANT'S FAILURE TO QUOTE RENTAL RATES ON THE BASIS OF THE UNIT SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION (ON A PER GAME BASIS) MUST RESULT IN THE PROTEST BEING DENIED.

TO MR. ROBERT SHERIFFS MOSS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 22, 1970, AND TO SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL DIVISION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. DAHB01-70-C-B264, DATED MARCH 20, 1970, TO THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DAHB01-70-B-A518, ISSUED JANUARY 15, 1970, BY THE CENTRAL PROCUREMENT AGENCY, FORT AMADOR, CANAL ZONE, FOR THE INSTALLATION AND LEASE OF 16 TEN-PIN, AUTOMATIC PIN- SPOTTER MACHINES TO BE PROVIDED AS REPLACEMENTS FOR 16 AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY MODELS 82-30 INSTALLED ON THE BOWLING ALLEYS AT THE FORT CLAYTON AND FORT GULICK, CANAL ZONE BOWLING CENTERS.

THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS PROVIDES THAT EACH MACHINE LEASED SHALL BE NEW OR REMANUFACTURED TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS A NEW MACHINE, AND MUST BE AUTOMATIC, 10-PINSPOTTING, AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY MODEL 82-45, OR EQUAL. THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC UNIT, THE MACHINE WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED FEATURES: SURFACE BALL RETURN MECHANISM, MASKING UNIT, PIN INDICATOR, CYCLE BUTTON, PIN MAT (AMF MAGIC CARPET, OR EQUAL), PIT CUSHION, FRAME COUNTER, REMOTE CONTROL COUNTER, AND BALL TRACK DOWNSWEEP.

AS REQUIRED IN ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON BRAND NAME, OR EQUAL, PRODUCTS, THE INVITATION FOR BIDS INCORPORATED THE BRAND NAME OR EQUAL CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 1-1206.3(B) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR), STATING IN PART THAT, IF ITEMS CALLED FOR BY THE INVITATION FOR BIDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY A BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTION, SUCH IDENTIFICATION IS INTENDED TO BE DESCRIPTIVE, BUT NOT RESTRICTIVE, AND IS TO INDICATE THE QUALITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PRODUCTS THAT WILL BE SATISFACTORY. ALTHOUGH THE CLAUSE CONTAINS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE SUBMISSION BY A BIDDER ON AN "EQUAL" PRODUCT OF ALL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL, THE CLAUSE OTHERWISE PROVIDES THAT THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE EQUALITY OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND WILL BE BASED ON INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE BIDDER OR IDENTIFIED IN HIS BID "AS WELL AS OTHER INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO THE PURCHASING ACTIVITY."

TWO BIDS WERE RECEIVED, ONE FROM THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, AND THE OTHER FROM THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION. THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY BID ON AN AMF MODEL 82-70B AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTER, NEW, AND IT OFFERED TO LEASE 16 MACHINES AT A FLAT MONTHLY RENTAL OF $100 PER MACHINE. THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION BID ON A REMANUFACTURED MODEL A-500-1- 000, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 AUTOMATIC PINSETTER. THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION QUOTED A RENTAL RATE OF $0.08 PER GAME OR RENTAL UNIT CONSISTING OF 11 FRAME CYCLES OF A MACHINE. THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY'S BID WAS REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE BID DID NOT QUOTE RENTAL CHARGES ON A PER-GAME BASIS, AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS. AN AWARD WAS MADE TO THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION ON MARCH 20, 1970, AFTER IT WAS DETERMINED IN A TECHNICAL EVALUATION PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL SERVICES OFFICER THAT THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 IS EQUAL TO THE AMF MODEL 82-45 IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.

IT WAS CONTENDED IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 22, 1970, THAT THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 IS NOT EQUAL TO THE AMF MODEL 82-45 IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS.

WHEN WE RECEIVED AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN REGARD TO THE PROTEST, YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE SEPARATE REPORT OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT, TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 27, 1970, ENTITLED "TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTER MACHINES." THE MEMORANDUM, WHICH APPEARS TO RELATE PRIMARILY TO THE REQUIRED FEATURES AS LISTED IN THE ADVERTISED PURCHASE DESCRIPTION, STATES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"2. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL DIVISION, 69 W. WASHINGTON STREET, CHICAGO, ILL 60602, SPECIFIED MACHINE (MODEL A NO. 500-1-000) EQUAL TO AMERICAN MACHINE AND FOUNDRY (AMF) MODEL NO. 8245. AFTER TECHNICAL REVIEW OF CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS AS BID BY BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS IS MADE:

"A. THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-500-1-000 MACHINE IS AN AUTOMATIC MECHANICAL DEVICE WHICH SERVES THE PURPOSE OF SETTING 10 BOWLING PINS. AMF MODEL 8245 IS AN ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE WHICH PERFORMS THE SAME PURPOSE. BOTH MACHINES ACCOMODATE ALL THE SITUATIONS GENERATED BY NORMAL BOWLING.

"B. BRUNSWICK MACHINES INCLUDE TWO RE-CYCLE BUTTONS. ONE FOR THE USE OF THE BOWLER LOCATED ON THE BALL RACK. THE SECOND FOR THE USE OF THE MECHANIC LOCATED IN THE MACHINE. AMF MODEL 8245 HAS THE SAME FEATURES.

"C. THE CONVEYOR ON THE BRUNSWICK MACHINE IS A BELT-DRIVEN METAL FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING A CONCAVE PLYWOOD BOARD COVERED WITH WOOL AND NYLON BLEND CARPETING. AMF'S CONVEYOR IS AN ENDLESS-TYPE MADE OF RUBBER (COMPOSITE) NOT COVERED WITH CARPETING. BOTH COMPONENTS SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION WHICH IS TO MOVE THE PINS INTO THE PIN ELEVATOR WHEEL.

"D. BOTH MACHINES HAVE A PIN ELEVATOR WHEEL WHICH FUNCTION IDENTICALLY.

"E. BRUNSWICK HAS A BALL-ELEVATOR WHEEL AND AMF HAS A BALL-LIFT MECHANISM. BOTH COMPONENTS PERFORM THE SAME JOB WHICH IS TO LIFT THE BALL FROM THE PITS TO THE TOP OF THE KICK-BACK.

"F. PIT CUSHION ON THE BRUNSWICK MACHINE IS MADE OF STEEL-REINFORCED BOARD COVERED WITH RUBBER PADDING AND LEATHER. THE AMF PIT CUSHION IS MADE OF HARDWOOD PLANK COVERED WITH SPONGE AND RUBBER. THEY BOTH FUNCTION IDENTICALLY AND THE PURPOSE IS TO STOP THE BALL AND TRIGGER THE MACHINE.

"G. THE FRAME COUNTER IN THE BRUNSWICK MACHINE IS LOCATED ON THE MANAGER'S CONTROL PANEL. THE AMF FRAME-COUNTER IS ALSO LOCATED ON THE MANAGER'S CONTROL PANEL. BOTH COUNTERS HAVE A MANAGER'S CONTROL SWITCH LOCATED AT THE CONTROL DESK.

"H. THE PIN FINDER DISPLAY IS MOUNTED ON THE MASKING UNIT IN BOTH BRUNSWICK AND AMF MACHINES AND BOTH SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION WHICH IS TO INFORM THE BOWLER AS TO THE PINS WHICH ARE LEFT STANDING FOR THE SECOND BALL.

"I. BRUNSWICK AND AMF FIRST AND SECOND BALL LIGHT ARE LOCATED ON THE MASKING UNITS AND SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE WHICH IS TO INFORM THE BOWLER THE FIRST AND SECOND MOVEMENT OF THE MACHINE FOR THE BOWLER THROWING THE BALL.

"3. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS THIS OFFICE CONSIDERS THAT THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-500-1-000 PINSETTER IS EQUAL IN PERFORMANCE TO THE AMF MODEL 8245 SPECIFIED IN THE REFERENCED SOLICITATION."

NOTWITHSTANDING THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION FAVORABLE TO THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1, YOUR POSITION IN THE MATTER WAS NOT CHANGED. YOU STATED THAT THE BALL RETURN TIME FOR THE MODEL A-1 IS 17 SECONDS AND THE AMF MODEL 82-45 REQUIRES A MAXIMUM OF 13-1/2 TO 14 SECONDS FOR BALL RETURN; THAT THE MODEL A-1 DOES NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC FOUL CYCLE, BUT THE MODEL 82-45 RECYCLES AUTOMATICALLY WHEN A FOUL IS COMMITTED BY A BOWLER; AND THAT THE MODEL 82- 45 HAS AN EXCLUSIVE FEATURE KNOWN AS THE INSTRUCTOMAT WHICH PERMITS PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT THE USE OF BOWLING PINS.

A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON THE PROTEST WAS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED, AND YOU WERE FURNISHED INFORMATION IN REGARD TO THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT.

THE RECORD NOW INDICATES THAT THE BALL RETURN TIME FOR THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 AUTOMATIC PINSETTER IS APPROXIMATELY 15.9 SECONDS, AND NOT 17 SECONDS, AS YOU CONTENDED. THE DIFFERENCE OF APPROXIMATELY TWO SECONDS BETWEEN THE BALL RETURN TIME OF THE MODEL A-1 AND THE AMF MODEL 82-45 IS CONSIDERED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO BE RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE OPERATION OF THE FORT CLAYTON AND FORT GULICK BOWLING CENTERS.

THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECOGNIZES THAT THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 DOES NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC FOUL CYCLE DEVICE AND THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE A DEVICE SUCH AS THE AMF INSTRUCTOMAT WHICH PERMITS PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT PINS PRIOR TO A LEAGUE STARTING TIME. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER CONSIDERS THAT THE AUTOMATIC FOUL CYCLE DEVICE IS NOT NECESSARILY AN IMPROVEMENT AND THAT PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT PINS SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE. HE EXPRESSES THE OPINION THAT THE OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY MERELY SERVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMF MODEL 82-45 AND THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 ARE NOT IDENTICAL, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. HE STATES THAT AMF IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WHICH ARE NOT THERE AND ARE NOT CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FEATURES IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND THAT THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 AUTOMATIC PINSETTERS, DELIVERED, INSTALLED AND PRESENTLY IN OPERATION AT THE FORT CLAYTON AND FORT GULICK BOWLING CENTERS MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR SATISFACTORY OPERATION.

IN A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 30, 1970, YOU OBJECTED TO INCLUSION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OF THE BRUNSWICK DESCRIPTION OF ITS MODEL A-2 AUTOMATIC PINSETTER. THE REPORT INCLUDED SUCH DESCRIPTION BECAUSE WE HAD REQUESTED ALL AVAILABLE PERTINENT INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE MODELS OF AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTERS OR PINSETTERS REFERRED TO IN THE CASE. THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-2 WAS FIRST MENTIONED IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 21, 1970, FROM THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, TO THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE. THE LETTER INCLUDES THE STATEMENT THAT THE MODEL A-2 "WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE 82-45 WHICH THE BID REQUIRED." IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT AT THAT TIME APPARENTLY CONSIDER A DIFFERENCE OF A FEW SECONDS IN BALL RETURN TIME TO BE SIGNIFICANT, SINCE THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-2 HAS A RATED BALL RETURN TIME THAT IS FASTER THAN THE BALL RETURN TIME OF THE AMF MODEL 82-45; AND THAT THE MODEL A-2 APPARENTLY DOES NOT HAVE EITHER A FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE OR A DEVICE SIMILAR TO THE AMF INSTRUCTOMAT, WHEREAS, IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT A LACK OF SUCH FEATURES IN THE MODEL A-1 SHOWS THAT THE MODEL A-1 IS NOT EQUAL TO THE MODEL 82-45.

AMF MODELS 82-30 WERE PROPOSED TO BE REPLACED WHEN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS ISSUED. THEY HAD BEEN IN USE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PROCUREMENT OFFICER DID NOT WANT THEM RECONDITIONED AT THE BOWLING CENTERS BUT WISHED TO LEASE ENTIRELY NEW MACHINES OR MACHINES REMANUFACTURED TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS A NEW MACHINE. YOU STATE THAT THE AMF MODEL 82-45 PINSPOTTER IS A FACTORY REBUILT MODEL 82 30, WITH NEW SIDEPLATES AND A FOOLPROOF BALL EXIT SYSTEM. YOU ALSO STATE THAT THE MODEL 82-30 HAS AS ITS SALIENT FEATURES AN AUTOMATIC FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE AND AN INSTRUCTOMAT, AND THAT THE MODEL 82-45 INCLUDES THOSE FEATURES. YOU LIST WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE AMF MODEL 82-45 AND THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1. YOU AGAIN CONTEND THAT THE TWO MODELS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EQUAL BECAUSE THE BALL RETURN TIME OF THE AMF MODEL 82-45 IS LESS THAN THAT OF THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1, THE MODEL 82-45 HAS A FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE AND THE MODEL A-1 DOES NOT HAVE SUCH A DEVICE, AND THE MODEL 82-45 HAS AN EXCLUSIVE DEVICE KNOWN AS THE INSTRUCTOMAT WHICH PERMITS PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT PINS. AS AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR, YOU STATE THAT THE MODEL 82-45 IS AN ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE AND THAT AN ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE IS OBVIOUSLY A SUPERIOR DEVICE TO A MECHANICAL DEVICE.

YOUR COMMENTS ON THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S STATEMENTS CONCERNING BALL RETURN TIME, AN AUTOMATIC FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE AND PRACTICE BOWLING WITHOUT PINS DO NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE POSITION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE PARTICULAR FEATURES OF THE AMF MODEL 82-45 AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTER ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FEATURES WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE LEASE OF AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTERS OR PINSETTERS WHICH WOULD PERFORM SATISFACTORILY.

THE BRUNSWICK MODEL A-1 IS EQUIPPED WITH ELECTRIC MOTORS AND A MECHANICAL DEVICE WHICH DIRECTS PINSETTER OPERATIONS BY MEANS OF HEAVY DUTY CAMS, LEVERS AND GEARS. WHETHER THIS IS A TYPE OF EQUIPMENT WHICH IS INFERIOR TO A SO-CALLED ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME PURPOSE WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION BY TECHNICAL EXPERTS AND WE DOUBT THE ACCURACY OF ANY GENERAL STATEMENT THAT AN ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE IS OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR TO A MECHANICAL DEVICE.

YOU CONTEND THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO INDICATE WHETHER ALL OR SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE AMF MODEL 82-45 WERE CHARACTERISTICS ESSENTIAL TO THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. YOU CITE 48 COMP. GEN. 441 (1968), WHEREIN WE HELD, WITH REFERENCE TO PROCUREMENTS UTILIZING BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTUAL NEEDS SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ADVANCE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS AND ONLY SUCH ACTUAL NEEDS SHOULD BE SET FORTH AS SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS.

THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTUAL NEEDS IN THIS CASE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED IN ADVANCE OF THE SOLICITATION FOR BIDS AND IT APPEARS THAT THOSE ACTUAL NEEDS WERE, IN FACT, SET FORTH AS REQUIRED FEATURES OR AS SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS. WE DO NOT, THEREFORE, AGREE THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE. NEITHER DO WE AGREE WITH YOUR SUGGESTION THAT A LISTING OF REQUIRED FEATURES FOLLOWING THE PHRASE "IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC UNIT," SHOULD BE REGARDED AS MEANING THAT AN OFFERED "EQUAL" PRODUCT MUST CONFORM TO ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE AMF MODEL 82-45 AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTER MACHINE WHICH YOU HAVE REFERRED TO AS BEING SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS. IT APPEARS THAT WHAT WAS INTENDED, AS REQUIRED BY REGULATION, WAS TO SHOW THAT ANY OFFERED "EQUAL" PRODUCT MUST, OF COURSE, INCLUDE A BASIC UNIT, NOT NECESSARILY IDENTICAL TO THE AMF MODEL 82-45, BUT INCLUDING THE SEVERAL "REQUIRED FEATURES" DETERMINED TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. SEE ASPR 1-1206.2(B), WHICH PROVIDES THAT BRAND NAME OR EQUAL PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS SHOULD SET FORTH THOSE SALIENT PHYSICAL, FUNCTIONAL, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REFERENCED PRODUCTS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE LISTING OF ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE BRAND NAME ITEM BUT ONLY AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ITEM. SEE 49 COMP. GEN. 347, 352 (1969).

IN REGARD TO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT YOUR CLIENT MIGHT HAVE BID ON A REMODELED AMF 82-30 AUTOMATIC PINSPOTTER MACHINE, WHICH WOULD NOT INCLUDE AN INSTRUCTOMAT OR AN AUTOMATIC FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE, THERE APPEARS NOTHING IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS TO INDICATE THAT ANY SUCH BID WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROPOSED EQUIPMENT WOULD NOT INCLUDE AN INSTRUCTOMAT OR AN AUTOMATIC FOUL RECYCLING DEVICE.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE INVITATION FOR BIDS IN THIS CASE IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE OR THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE BID OF THE BRUNSWICK CORPORATION TO BE RESPONSIVE. ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE THE BID OF THE AMERICAN MACHINE & FOUNDRY COMPANY DOES NOT QUOTE RENTAL RATES ON THE BASIS OF THE UNIT SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION, THE PROTEST MADE TO OUR OFFICE IN THE MATTER IS HEREBY DENIED.