A firm protested an Army contract award for the rental and servicing of portable chemical toilets, contending that: (1) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive; and (2) the solicitation's language was ambiguous. GAO found that: (1) the awardee's use of a no-charge bid for a line item was responsive because the bid corresponded with a zero-dollar bid and represented the awardee's affirmative commitment...

LOW BIDDER WHO SUBMITS A BID WITH SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR TWO ITEMS AND A "NO CHARGE" BID FOR A THIRD ITEM IS RESPONSIVE BECAUSE. AN IFB EVALUATION FACTOR WHICH PROVIDES THAT BIDS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE AND WILL BE REJECTED IF RECEIVED "WITHOUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT OR N/C (NO CHARGE) ENTERED" FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. THE ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THIS EVALUATION...