B-231746, Jun 28, 1988, 88-1 CPD 616
Highlights
The bid is nonresponsive and may not be corrected after bid opening. The firm contends that the Air Force should have permitted it to correct its bid because its specification of 30 days was an inadvertent. A provision in a sealed bid solicitation requiring that a bid remain available for acceptance by the government for 60 calendar days in order to be considered for award is a material requirement. As CooperVision's bid thus was nonresponsive. The Air Force was required to reject it and to refuse CooperVision's offer to correct it after bid opening. CooperVision claims that the Air Force nevertheless should have accepted the bid rather than award the contract to a higher bidder. It is well- established.
B-231746, Jun 28, 1988, 88-1 CPD 616
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bids - Responsiveness - Acceptance time periods - Deviation DIGEST: Where a bid offers a minimum bid acceptance period of 30 days in response to a sealed bid solicitation requiring 60 days, the bid is nonresponsive and may not be corrected after bid opening.
CooperVision, Inc:
CooperVision, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFH) No. F22600-88-B-A030, issued by Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, for the purchase of laser equipment. The solicitation required a minimum bid acceptance period of 60 days, but CooperVision specified in its bid a 30-day acceptance period. The firm contends that the Air Force should have permitted it to correct its bid because its specification of 30 days was an inadvertent, typographical error.
We dismiss the protest. A provision in a sealed bid solicitation requiring that a bid remain available for acceptance by the government for 60 calendar days in order to be considered for award is a material requirement, and it thus must be complied with at bid opening for the bid to be responsive. Dean's Security Professionals, B-224429, July 31, 1886, 86-2 CPD Para. 132. As CooperVision's bid thus was nonresponsive, the Air Force was required to reject it and to refuse CooperVision's offer to correct it after bid opening. See Master Security, Inc., B-225719, et al., Feb. 26, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 226.
CooperVision claims that the Air Force nevertheless should have accepted the bid rather than award the contract to a higher bidder. It is well- established, however, that the importance of maintaining the integrity of the competitive bidding process outweighs any cost advantage of accepting a nonresponsive bid. See Electrical Systems Engineering Co., B-223199, Sept. 4, 1886, 86-2 CPD Para. 258.