Protest of Bid Rejection as Nonresponsive

A company protested the determination of its bid as nonresponsive by the District of Columbia. The company argued that its failure to offer delivery at quoted prices for the entire contract period was the result of an error, and contended that the rejection was improper since the District had previously accepted similar nonconforming bids. The company further argued that all bids except its own were nonresponsive for their failure to specify the origin of the offered material. Bid responsiveness requires that an offer provide, without exception, exactly what is required by the solicitation at a firm-fixed price. When a bidder qualifies an offer so that the total price cannot be determined, the bid must be rejected as nonresponsive. Further, a nonresponsive bid may not be made responsive by explanation after bid opening regardless of whether its noncompliance with solicitation requirements was due to an error. Therefore, the District was correct in determining that the company's bid was nonresponsive. The argument that the bid rejection was improper since the District had accepted similar nonconforming bids was without merit since prior erroneous actions by contracting officials cannot prevent the District from rejecting a nonresponsive bid. Since the invitation for bids permitted the use of either foreign or domestic products, the failure of the other bidders to indicate the origin of materials as required by the solicitation did not render their bids nonresponsive. Accordingly, the protest was denied.