A protester questioned the propriety of the General Service Administration's (GSA's) rejection of several bids on the basis that they were materially unbalanced and constituted a circumvention of the statutory price limitation for passenger motor vehicles. A statutory amendment which enabled GSA to purchase additional automobile equipment over the basic vehicle price limitation does not mean that the agency cannot examine a bid's price structure to determine whether there is an attempt to circumvent the basic price limitation since Congress did not intend to allow such circumvention. The agency was reasonable in inferring that the bids' significantly high additional equipment prices included part of the basic vehicle cost in an attempt to circumvent the statutory price limitation which was a solicitation requirement. The bids were properly rejected as nonresponsive although the stated reason for rejection, "material unbalancing," was imprecise.
Skip to Highlights