Two firms protested the award of a contract issued under an invitation for bids for brand name or equal office furniture. The protesters alleged that the award was improper because: (1) the awardee's bid was nonresponsive since the products offered were not equal to the brand name products required by the solicitation; (2) the awardee was incapable of performing the contract; (3) the contracting officer improperly corrected a mistake in the bid price submitted by the awardee; and (4) the lower Buy American Act differential was applied to the awardee's bid. GAO held that, under a brand name or equal solicitation, the bid which offers to supply some of required furniture items with dimensions different from those listed in the solicitation is nonresponsive; therefore, the awardee's bid should have been rejected as nonresponsive. Because acceptance of the deviating bid showed that the solicitation overstated Government needs and the solicitation contained no required or desired delivery schedule, cancellation would have been recommended if the contract had not been performed. Accordingly, the protest was sustained. However, since the contract had been fully performed, no remedial action was recommended.
Skip to Highlights