Skip to Highlights
Highlights

BID OFFERING A 3-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD WHEN THE SOLICITATION ESSENTIALLY REQUESTED A 60-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD WAS PROPERLY REJECTED WHEN AWARD COULD NOT BE MADE WITHIN THE 3-DAY PERIOD. POSSIBILITY THAT GOVERNMENT MIGHT REALIZE MONETARY SAVINGS IN PARTICULAR PROCUREMENT IF BIDDER IS PERMITTED TO EXTEND SHORTER-THAN REQUESTED ACCEPTANCE PERIOD IS OUTWEIGHED BY IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM. THE BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE LANE HAD PROVIDED FOR A 3-DAY BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD AND GPO WAS UNABLE TO MAKE AWARD WITHIN THAT PERIOD. IF THIS BID IS ACCEPTED WITHIN . - CALENDAR DAYS (60 CALENDAR DAYS UNLESS A DIFFERENT PERIOD IS INSERTED BY THE OFFEROR) FROM THE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

View Decision

B-216520, OCT 23, 1984, 84-2 CPD 454

BIDS - ACCEPTANCE TIME LIMITATION - BIDS OFFERING DIFFERENT ACCEPTANCE PERIODS - SHORTER PERIODS - REJECTION OF BID DIGEST: 1. BID OFFERING A 3-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD WHEN THE SOLICITATION ESSENTIALLY REQUESTED A 60-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD WAS PROPERLY REJECTED WHEN AWARD COULD NOT BE MADE WITHIN THE 3-DAY PERIOD. BIDDER MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND THAT PERIOD SINCE SUCH EXTENSION WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO OTHER BIDDERS WHO OFFERED THE REQUESTED ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. BIDS - COMPETITIVE SYSTEM - COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT - PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE NOTWITHSTANDING 2. POSSIBILITY THAT GOVERNMENT MIGHT REALIZE MONETARY SAVINGS IN PARTICULAR PROCUREMENT IF BIDDER IS PERMITTED TO EXTEND SHORTER-THAN REQUESTED ACCEPTANCE PERIOD IS OUTWEIGHED BY IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM.

LANE BLUEPRINT COMPANY:

LANE BLUEPRINT COMPANY PROTESTS THE REJECTION OF ITS BID UNDER SOLICITATION NO. 1651-S, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO). THE BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE LANE HAD PROVIDED FOR A 3-DAY BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD AND GPO WAS UNABLE TO MAKE AWARD WITHIN THAT PERIOD. GPO DETERMINED THAT IT COULD NOT ALLOW LANE TO EXTEND ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO BIDDERS.

WE DENY THE PROTEST.

THE SOLICITATION INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING BID ACCEPTANCE CLAUSE:

... THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES, IF THIS BID IS ACCEPTED WITHIN --- CALENDAR DAYS (60 CALENDAR DAYS UNLESS A DIFFERENT PERIOD IS INSERTED BY THE OFFEROR) FROM THE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS SPECIFIED HEREIN, TO FURNISH ANY OR ALL ITEM UPON WHICH PRICES ARE OFFERED ... IN THE SCHEDULE. LANE ENTERED A 3-DAY PERIOD IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. IT CONTENDS THAT IT MISUNDERSTOOD THE SOLICITATION PROVISION AND THAT THE 3 DAYS REPRESENTED THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH WORK WAS TO BE COMPLETED. THE PROTESTER ARGUES THAT AN EXTENSION OF ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

ALTHOUGH THE STANDARD ACCEPTANCE PERIOD CLAUSE GIVES BIDDER TO STATE A TIME DIFFERENT FROM THE 60-DAY PERIOD, WE VIEW IT AS ESSENTIALLY A REQUEST FOR A 60-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. AMERICAN TRUSS & MFG. CORP., ET AL., B-205692, ET AL., MAY 18, 1982, 82-1 CPD PARA. 477. BY LIMITING ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD TO 3 DAYS, LANE NOT ONLY TOOK THE RISK THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE AWARD WITHIN THAT TIME, BUT ALSO AVOIDED THE RISK OF INCREASED PERFORMANCE COSTS DURING THE FOLLOWING 57- DAY PERIOD WHICH OTHER BIDDERS ASSUMED BY GRANTING A 60-DAY BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. TIMBERLINE FORESTERS, 59 COMP.GEN 726 (1980), 80-2 CPD PARA. 195. THUS, ALLOWING LANE TO DECIDE, SUBJECT TO ITS OWN PARTICULAR INTEREST, WHETHER IT WISHES TO EXTEND THE BID OR LET IT EXPIRE WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO OTHER BIDDERS WHO OFFERED THE REQUESTED ACCEPTANCE PERIOD AND WHO ARE THEREFORE BOUND BY THEIR PRICES FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. AMERICAN TRUSS & MFG. CORP., ET AL., SUPRA.

LANE CONTENDS THAT IT ERRONEOUSLY INSERTED THE 3-DAY FIGURE AND THAT IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CORRECT THIS ERROR. AN IRREGULARITY OR DEVIATION IN A BID MAY NOT BE WAIVED BY THE AGENCY WHERE, AS HERE, THE ALLEGED ERROR IMPACTS N A MATERIAL PORTION OF THE BID SUCH AS THE BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. SEE UNION METAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ELECTROLINE DIVISION, B-209161, NOV. 2, 1982, 82-2 CPD PARA 402. IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF LANE'S BID OR THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT LANE'S INSERTION OF THE 3 DAY PERIOD WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.

LANE CONTENDS THAT IT SIMILARLY AMENDED ITS BID UNDER A PAST PROCUREMENT AND RECEIVED THE AWARD. WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED, WE HAVE HELD THAT AS A GENERAL RULE EXTENSIONS OF SHORTER THAN REQUIRED BID ACCEPTANCE PERIODS MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. SEE AMERICAN TRUSS & MFG. CORP., ET AL., SUPRA.CONSEQUENTLY, IF LANE WAS PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED TO EXTEND ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE REPORTED HERE THAT ACTION WAS ERRONEOUS AND CANNOT ESTOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM PROPERLY REJECTING LANE'S BID IN THIS CASE. SEE WILMINGTON SHIPYARD, INC., B-214467, JUNE 27, 1984, 84-1CPD PARA. 677.

LANE ALSO ARGUES THAT THE AGENCY SHOULD ACCEPT ITS BID TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS LOWER PRICE. THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT REALIZE MONETARY SAVINGS IF A MATERIAL DEFICIENCY IS ALLOWED TO BE CORRECTED OR WAIVED IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM. UNION METAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ELECTROLINE DIVISION. SUPRA.

THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

GAO Contacts