B-128475, OCT. 18, 1956

B-128475, OCT. 18, 1956

TO CONSOLIDATED DIESEL ELECTRIC CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1956, AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR PROTEST WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 1956, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, WHEREIN WE WITHDREW OUR OBJECTIONS RAISED IN DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1956, TO THE REJECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OF YOUR BID SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DA-ENG-11-184-56-F-609, ISSUED BY THE CHICAGO PROCUREMENT OFFICE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

THE 334 ELECTRIC GENERATOR SETS CALLED FOR BY THE INVITATION WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF THE PURCHASE DESCRIPTION, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, ADDITIONS, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AS SET FORTH IN THE INVITATION. NO PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE INVITATION FOR A BIDDER TO STATE THE TYPE, MAKE OR MODEL NUMBER OF ANY OF THE EQUIPMENT HE PROPOSED TO FURNISH. IT WAS PROVIDED, PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF ANY COMPLETE PRODUCTION UNIT FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE, THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD FURNISH ONE ENGINE-GENERATOR SET OF THE TYPE COVERED BY THE CONTRACT FOR PRE-PRODUCTION TESTS TO DETERMINE ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. THE INVITATION WAS STRICTLY FOR A PERFORMANCE-TYPE PROCUREMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT APPARENTLY WAS IN NO POSITION TO DETERMINE, PRIOR TO AWARD, THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ANY PARTICULAR TYPE, MAKE OR MODEL OF ANY COMPONENT PART OF THE GENERATOR SET.

NINE BIDS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICES QUOTED, IT APPEARED THAT YOUR BID, PROPOSING TO FURNISH THE BUDA MODEL 516 DIESEL ENGINE, NATURALLY ASPIRATED, WAS THE LOWEST AND THAT THE BID OF STEWART AND STEVENSON SERVICES, INC., WAS SECOND LOW. THE BID OF STEWART AND STEVENSON WAS SUBMITTED WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS OR QUALIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS. YOUR BID, SIGNED BY J. WARD, VICE PRESIDENT, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY LETTER DATED MAY 29, 1956, SIGNED BY F. M. CESARIO, SALES DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:

"ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND SUBJECT INVITATION TO BID, EXECUTED IN TRIPLICATE, FOR 334-45 KW DIESEL GENERATING UNITS. WE WISH TO POINT OUT THE FOLLOWING:

"/1) PAGE 3 OF THE INVITATION TO BID COVERING EXCEPTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION STATES "PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2: DELETE IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTE: THE DIESEL ENGINE TESTS SHALL CONFORM TO METHODS 201.0 THRU 305.0 OF SPECIFICATION MIL-E-11278A.' THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH WAS DELETED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1, BUT THEN LATER REINSERTED BY AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE INVITATION. WE THEREFORE HAVE DELETED THE TESTING COVERED UNDER PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2 OF THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION DATED 29 FEBRUARY 1956 AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 DATED 13 MARCH 1956.

"IF THE TESTS CALLED OUT UNDER PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 AND 4.2.3 OF THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION MENTIONED ABOVE ARE DESIRED AT SOME LATER DATE, OUR PRICE PER UNIT WILL INCREASE $70.00, OR A TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE INCREASE OF $23,380.00.

"/2) WE PROPOSE FURNISHING THE BUDA MODEL 516 DIESEL ENGINE. THIS ENGINE HAS A DISPLACEMENT OF 516 CUBIC INCHES AND A CONTINUOUS RATING AT SEA LEVEL OF 128 BRAKE HORSEPOWER. WITH DEDUCTIONS FOR ALTITUDE OF 15 PERCENT, TEMPERATURE 2 PERCENT, THE ENGINE PRODUCES 106 BHP FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION AT 5,000 FT. AND 107 DEGREES F. THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION REQUESTS 100 BRAKE HORSEPOWER CONTINUOUS FOR THE ABOVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. THE OUTPUT OF THIS ENGINE WILL ADEQUATELY POWER THE 45 KW GENERATING UNITS UNDER ALL OPERATING CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION. IT WILL ALSO BE ADEQUATE FOR POWERING A 60 KW GENERATOR UNDER ALL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS COVERED BY THE SUBJECT INVITATION.

"IF IT IS REQUIRED THAT A LARGER ENGINE BE FURNISHED, THE SUPERCHARGED VERSION OF THE 516 BUDA ENGINE, RATED AT 140 HORSEPOWER, IS OFFERED WITH A NET INCREASE IN PRICE PER UNIT OF $331.50, OR A TOTAL INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE FOR 334 UNITS OF $110,721.00.

"IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ENCLOSED QUOTATION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US.'

DURING THE COURSE OF EVALUATING THE BIDS RECEIVED FOR AWARD, CERTAIN DOUBTS ENTERED THE PROCUREMENT OFFICERS' MINDS AS TO WHETHER THE ENGINE OFFERED BY YOU (BUDA MODEL 516 NATURALLY ASPIRATED) WOULD FULLY COMPLY WITH THE ADVERTISED REQUIREMENTS. THEREFORE, YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH A CERTIFICATION, SUPPORTED BY A CERTIFICATION BY THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER, THAT THE ENGINE WITHOUT THE SUPERCHARGER WOULD DEVELOP 100 HP NET CONTINUOUS AT 1.714 TO 2,000 RPM, INCLUDING ALL ACCESSORIES, AT AN ALTITUDE OF 5,000 FEET (24.9 INCHES MERCURY) AT AN AMBIENT TEMPERATURE OF 107 DEGREES F WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILITARY SPECIFICATION MIL-E- 11278A, TEST METHOD 107.3. YOU REPLIED THAT YOU WOULD FURNISH, AT YOUR BID PRICE OF $7,950 EACH, GENERATOR SETS EQUIPPED WITH ENGINES, AS REQUIRED, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE TEST METHOD REFERRED TO, AND QUOTED FROM A TELEGRAM FROM ALLIS-CHALMERS WHICH STATED THAT THE 516 DIESEL WITHOUT SUPERCHARGER WOULD DEVELOP 100 HP NET CONTINUOUS AT 1,846 RPM, INCLUDING ALL ACCESSORIES, AS REQUIRED.

IN THE FINAL EVALUATION OF YOUR BID IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT YOUR LOW BID OF $7,950 WAS QUALIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE GENERATOR SETS WHICH YOU WOULD FURNISH AT THAT PRICE WOULD BE EQUIPPED WITH A BUDA MODEL 516 DIESEL ENGINE (NATURALLY ASPIRATED) AND THAT UNDER YOUR BID AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED YOU HAD LIMITED THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH YOU WOULD ASSUME WITH RESPECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS WHEN YOU SPECIFIED THE PARTICULAR MAKE AND MODEL ENGINE AND ADDED THAT A LARGER ENGINE, IF REQUIRED, WOULD BE FURNISHED FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. BASED UPON SUCH DETERMINATION, THE BID WAS REJECTED AS NOT BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION AND THE AWARD WAS MADE TO STEWART AND STEVENSON SERVICES, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, ON JUNE 28, 1956.

YOU THEREUPON PROTESTED TO THIS OFFICE AGAINST THE AWARD MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND A REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM THAT DEPARTMENT AS TO THE BASIS OF THEIR ACTION. IT APPEARED FROM THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY YOU AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THAT THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED WAS WHETHER YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH AN ENGINE FULLY COMPLYING WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AT YOUR BID PRICE OF $7,950. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD, IT WAS HELD IN DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1956, THAT YOU DID OFFER TO FURNISH EQUIPMENT INCLUDING AN ENGINE WHICH WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT, THEREFORE, THERE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR LOW BID.

THEREAFTER, STEWART AND STEVENSON SERVICES, INC., THE BIDDER TO WHOM AWARD HAD BEEN MADE, PROTESTED THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE DECISION CONTENDING THAT YOUR BID WAS NOT ONLY NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE INVITATION BUT, IN FACT, WAS NOT THE LOWEST RECEIVED. THE BASIS FOR THE LATTER CONTENTION WAS THAT THE $70 PER UNIT MENTIONED IN THE SUBPARAGRAPH TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, 1956, QUOTED ABOVE, WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO YOUR BID PRICE OF $7,950 AS THE TESTS CALLED FOR UNDER PARAGRAPHS "4.2.2 AND 4.2.3" OF THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION COULD BE REQUIRED AND THAT AN ADDITIONAL UNDETERMINED AMOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE TESTS REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPHS "4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2" OF THE PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FURNISHED A FURTHER REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE STEWART AND STEVENSON PROTEST AND ALSO RECOMMENDED FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1956.

IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1956, BASED PRIMARILY UPON THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, IT WAS HELD THAT YOUR BID, AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNQUALIFIED COMMITMENT TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND, THEREFORE, WE WITHDREW OUR OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 9, 1956.

FURTHER CONSIDERATION IS REQUESTED OF YOUR PROTEST ON THE BASES SET FORTH IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1956, AS EMPHASIZED AND AMPLIFIED IN OTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOUR COMPANY. IT IS IN EFFECT STATED IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 14 AND AGAIN IN LETTER DATED OCTOBER 3, 1956, FROM YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. WACHTEL, THAT THE OMISSION OF THE WORD "NET" FROM THE LETTER OF MAY 29, 1956, WHICH ACCOMPANIED YOUR BID WAS IMMATERIAL AND THAT NO SIGNIFICANCE CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE USE OF THE TERM 100 HORSEPOWER WITHOUT THE WORD "NET.' IN SUPPORT OF THAT STATEMENT MR. WACHTEL FURNISHED THE WRITTEN OPINIONS OF TWO MEMBERS OF THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION. IT WILL BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT PARAGRAPH 3.1.7.3 OF MIL-G-11278A, MADE A PART OF THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS, EXPRESSLY DEFINES THE TERM "CONTINUOUS NET BRAKE HORSEPOWER" AS "THE MAXIMUM NET CONTINUOUS HORSEPOWER AT A GIVEN SPEED AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEST METHOD 105.0.' IT THUS IS SHOWN THAT THE TERM "NET" AS USED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS DEFINED SO THAT BIDDERS COULD PREPARE THEIR BIDS ON THE BASIS OF THAT DEFINITION AND THAT IT WAS NOT AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESORT TO ALLEGED UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE TERM. ALL BIDDERS WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THEIR BIDS IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS AND THE MEANING OF THE TERMS OF THOSE SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND NOT NECESSARILY AS UNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS WHO MAY NOT BE COGNIZANT OF THE PERTINENT FACTS INVOLVED.

YOU RESTATE YOUR PRIOR CONTENTION THAT YOU OFFERED AN ENGINE WHICH WOULD MEET ALL CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AT THE PRICE OF $7,950. YOU PROPOSED TO FURNISH THE BUDA MODEL 516 DIESEL ENGINE WHICH YOU CLAIMED WOULD PRODUCE 106 BHP AND WOULD ADEQUATELY POWER THE 45 KW GENERATING UNITS UNDER ALL OPERATING CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE INVITATION. YOU STATE IN EFFECT ALSO THAT YOUR COVERING LETTER OF MAY 29, 1956, DID NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A FORMAL OFFER TO FURNISH THE BUDA MODEL BUT RATHER EXPRESSED AN INTENT TO USE THE ENGINE WHICH IN FACT IS IN EXCESS OF 100 HP NET CONTINUOUS AND MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADVERTISED CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN YOUR BID WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED, HOWEVER, WAS THAT YOU INTENDED TO USE A BUDA MODEL 516 AND THAT YOU DID NOT CONTEMPLATE USING ANY OTHER MODEL. WHILE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY URGED SINCE THE BID OPENING DATE, THAT THE ENGINE YOU PROPOSED TO USE WOULD MEET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN ALL RESPECTS, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ENGINE YOU OFFERED HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN THE PREPRODUCTION TEST FOR A FINAL DETERMINATION AND THAT NO ONE CAN SAY DEFINITELY WHETHER ANY ENGINE WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS UNTIL GIVEN THAT TEST. IT IS UNDERSTOOD FROM STATEMENTS MADE BY YOUR OWN REPRESENTATIVES THAT UNDER A PRIOR SIMILAR PROCUREMENT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN THE ENGINES WHICH HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY YOU BUT WHICH WERE LATER FOUND NOT TO MEET ALL OF THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS FOR REASONS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FORESEEN AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING YOUR BID. IF FOR SOME UNFORESEEABLE REASON OR REASONS THE ENGINE OFFERED BY YOU IN THIS INSTANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND AS FAILING TO MEET THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS ON PREPRODUCTION TEST, THE QUESTION WOULD THEN IMMEDIATELY HAVE ARISEN AS TO WHETHER YOU COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON THE FURNISH AT YOUR BASIC QUOTED PRICE OF $7,950 AN ENGINE THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. CONSIDERING THE WORDING OF YOUR BID ON THE BID OPENING DATE, THERE WAS DEFINITELY REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED TO FURNISH AT THAT PRICE ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENGINE THAN THE BUDA MODEL 516 NATURALLY ASPIRATED. BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT AS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, IF IT WERE FOUND THAT A LARGER ENGINE WAS REQUIRED, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO FURNISH THE SUPERCHARGED VERSION OF THE 516 BUDA ENGINE AT A NET INCREASE IN PRICE PER UNIT OF $331.50.

IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A BID SO AMBIGUOUS THAT ITS INTENDED MEANING AS TO THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED CANNOT BE REASONABLY DETERMINED WITHOUT CONSULTING THE BIDDER IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE. MOREOVER, THE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT TO CONSTITUTE A BINDING AGREEMENT AN ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER MUST MEET AND CORRESPOND IN EVERY RESPECT WITH THE OFFER. SEE 17 C.J.S. 378. VIEWING YOUR OFFER IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO YOU, IT DEFINITELY LEFT ROOM FOR DOUBT AS TO WHAT WAS INTENDED. FURTHERMORE, THE SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATION MIGHT WELL BE REGARDED AS A MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL BID BECAUSE AN UNQUALIFIED OFFER TO FURNISH EQUIPMENT CONFORMING EXACTLY TO THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS NOT CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL BID. IS TOO WELL SETTLED TO REQUIRE CITATION OF AUTHORITY THAT TO PERMIT A BIDDER TO VARY ITS PROPOSAL IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT AFTER THE BIDS HAVE BEEN OPENED WOULD SOON REDUCE TO A FARCE THE WHOLE PROCEDURE OF LETTING PUBLIC CONTRACTS ON AN OPEN COMPETITIVE BASIS. SUCH PROCEDURE, WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED BY LAW, IS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PECUNIARY ADVANTAGES MIGHT APPEAR TO BE OBTAINABLE BY VIOLATING IT IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE. IN THAT PART OF YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1956, RELATIVE TO THE STATEMENT IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1956, THAT YOUR BID OF $7,950 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE LOWEST RECEIVED, YOU CONTEND, AT GREAT LENGTH, THAT YOUR BID WAS NOT REGARDED AS OTHER THAN LOW UNTIL LONG AFTER THE BID OPENING DATE AND THAT IN VARIOUS CONFERENCES HELD IN CHICAGO AND WASHINGTON THE MATTER OF TESTING WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP AS A REASON FOR REJECTION OF YOUR BID. YOU CLAIM THAT HAD THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED THE TESTS COVERED BY THE ELIMINATED PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2 YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVIDE THEM AS A PART OF YOUR PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CONTRACT AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. YOU URGE THAT THE TESTS COVERED BY PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2 CANNOT BE REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS MADE A MISTAKE IN DELETING THEM. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATED, HOWEVER, AS SHOWN IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1956, THAT THE SPECIFIC ELIMINATION OF PARAGRAPHS 4.2.2 THROUGH 4.3.2 DID NOT PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT FROM HAVING THE CONTRACTOR PERFORM ANY ONE OR ALL OF THE TESTS SINCE THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN MIL-G-10228. THIS IS ALSO THE UNDERSTANDING OF STEWART AND STEVENSON SERVICES, INC. IN VIEW OF THE BROAD PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING TESTING, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DIFFER WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS. MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT YOU FOUND IT NECESSARY TO OFFER TO PERFORM SOME OF THE TESTS WHICH YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CLAIMED WERE ELIMINATED FOR THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF $70 PER UNIT OR FOR A TOTAL OF $23,380 IS INDICATIVE OF A FEELING ON YOUR PART THAT YOU MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE TESTS. IF THE TESTS, REGARDLESS OF THE AUTHORITY THEREFOR, ARE REQUIRED, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED UNDER YOUR BID TO PAY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF $70 PER UNIT. IF THE TERMS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE CLEAR TO YOU OR IF YOU INTENDED TO PERFORM ALL TESTS REQUIRED AT THE LOWER OF THE TWO PRICES QUOTED BY YOU, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY FOR THE STATEMENT IN YOUR COVERING LETTER. IN FACT, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO EVEN WRITE THE LETTER IF IT WAS YOUR INTENTION TO MEET THE ADVERTISED SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. IT MERELY SERVED TO CONFUSE THE MEANING OF YOUR BID AND TO RENDER IT AMBIGUOUS. ITS LANGUAGE MADE POSSIBLE THE VERY ACTION WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR BID WAS AMBIGUOUS AND NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, AN INTERPRETATION WHICH, ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US, WAS NOT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH OR IRREGULARITY ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT IN REJECTING YOUR BID.

ACCORDINGLY, AS WE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, WE WILL NOT FURTHER OBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN REJECTING YOUR BID.