B-184485: Sep 10, 1976

A company protested award of a contract, questioning the manner in which proposals were solicited and evaluated. A typographical error in the solicitation was not prejudicial to the offeror. Although oral explanations are not binding, the protester could not have been prejudiced even if misled by oral advice since the protester was adequately informed of the importance of evaluation criteria and t...

B-184485: Sep 10, 1976

WHERE PROTESTER WAS AWARE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN SOLICITATION WELL IN ADVANCE OF DUE DATE FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL. ORAL COST ESTIMATES ALLEGEDLY FURNISHED OFFEROR BY AGENCY OFFICIALS HAVE NO EFFECT WHERE RFP CAUTIONS OFFERORS THAT ORAL EXPLANATIONS ARE NOT BINDING AND PROHIBITS OFFEROR COMMUNICATION WITH AGENCY OFFICIALS NOT NAMED IN SOLICITATION. RECORD SHOWS THAT PROTESTER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN...