B-170509, JAN 18, 1971

B-170509, JAN 18, 1971

BID PROTEST - ALTERNATE QUANTITY LIMITATIONS AFFIRMING PRIOR DECISION WHICH DENIED PROTEST BY KINGS POINT MFG., CO., INC., AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF BID BY ANTI-COLD INSULATED CLOTHING, INC., ON BASIS THAT ALTERNATE QUANTITIES LIMITATIONS DID NOT RENDER THE BID NONRESPONSIVE. AN IFB REQUESTING BIDS ON "100% OF ALL ITEMS OR NONE" OR "100% OF EITHER ITEM" IS AN EXPRESSION OF ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES AND NO RECONCILIATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES IS REQUIRED; IF ANTI-COLD CHECKED BOTH COLUMNS, IT IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THE CHOICE AS TO WHICH ALTERNATIVE TO ACCEPT AND THE DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED.

TO KINGS POINT MFG. CO., INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 6, 1970, REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF OUR DECISION B-170509, SEPTEMBER 28, 1970, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT THE ALTERNATE QUANTITY LIMITATIONS OFFERED BY ANTI-COLD INSULATED CLOTHING, INC., IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DSA100 70 -B-1594, DID NOT RENDER THAT FIRM'S BID NONRESPONSIVE.

THE ALTERNATE QUANTITIES OFFERED BY ANTI-COLD FOR ACCEPTANCE WERE "100% OF ALL ITEMS OR NONE OR 100% OF EITHER ITEM." WITH RESPECT TO THIS OFFER, YOU STATE:

"OUR QUESTION RELATES TO THE FIRST ALTERNATE: '100% OF ALL ITEMS OR NONE'. WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RATIONALE IN PERMITTING THE ALTERNATE 'OR NONE' TO BE RECONCILED WITH '100% OF EITHER ITEM'.

"IN SHORT, YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED THE FIRST ALTERNATE AS '100% OF BOTH ITEMS' AND APPARENTLY ELECTED TO IGNORE THE 'OR NONE' WHICH WAS A PART OF THIS BID."

IN THE PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPH OF OUR DECISION, WE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE BID OF ANTI-COLD OFFERED TWO ALTERNATE QUANTITY LIMITATIONS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO RECONCILIATION OF THE ALTERNATES WAS REQUIRED. WE WENT ON TO SAY THAT EACH ALTERNATE HAD TO BE EVALUATED INDIVIDUALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO EACH OTHER AND WE CONCLUDED WITH THE STATEMENT, "A DIFFERENT RESULT OBTAINS WHERE THERE ARE TWO QUANTITY LIMITATIONS AND NO INDICATION THAT THEY ARE ALTERNATES."

IN SUMMARY, NO RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE ALTERNATES WAS MADE SINCE NONE WAS REQUIRED. HENCE, THE RATIONALIZATION REQUESTED IS INAPPROPRIATE. VIEW OF OUR ABOVE-STATED POSITION, THE PHRASE "OR NONE" HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE ALTERNATE "100% OF EITHER ITEM." IT IS, OF COURSE, RELEVANT TO THE OTHER ALTERNATE AND WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED AN AWARD TO ANTI-COLD FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF BOTH ITEMS.

ALTHOUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED ARE SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, WE FIND NO BASIS TO DEPART FROM OUR ORIGINAL DECISION IN THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUSTAINED.