About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-203589.2 1 (1981-11-02)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadjvy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




                                 ~~~~ITHE COMP~TROLLER GENERAL
              DECIS7ON                OF THE UNITED       STATES
                                      WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20548




              FILE:   B-203589.2            DATE: November 2, 1981
    JMATTER OF:
              MT    RF      AMS Manufacturing, Inc.--
                            Reconsideration

              DIGEST:


                        Prior decision, denying the protest,
                        is affirmed where the protester does
                        not show that the decision contains
                        any error of fact or law.
                    AMS Manufacturing, Inc. (AMS), requests

               reconsideration of our decision in the matter of AMS
               Manufacturing, Inc., B-203589, September 2, 1981, 81-2
               CPD 195, wherein we denied its protest.

                    The United States Army Armament Materiel Readiness
               Command (Army), Rock Island, Illinois, issued invita-
               tion for bids (IFB) No. DAAA09-81-B-0049 to procure
               274,054 lifting plugs for use on four different types
               of projectiles. The AMS bid was the fourth lowest
               bid. In its protest to our Office, AMS argued that
               the two lowest bids (Solar Flame, Inc., H/R Products,
               Inc.) were nonresponsive for failure to comply with
               the IFB's Surge Option for Increased Quantity
               provision.

                    Since the third low bidder's small business size
               status had been referred to the Small Business Admin-
               istration, we considered only whether the Solar Flame
               and H/R Products bids were responsive. Because the
               Surge Option provision was not being evaluated in
               determining the awardee, there was no option price
               ceiling and nothing in the IFB indicated that an offer
:for the Surge Option was mandatory, we concluded that
               the failure to comply was not a material deviation
               requiring bid rejection. We also held that, contrary
               to AMS's assertion, a bidder which did not offer the
               Surge Option did not obtain an unfair competitive
               advantage.

                    On reconsideration, AMS focuses on our conclusion
               that the failure to bid on the Surge Option provision
               did not render the two lowest bids nonresponsive.





                                 11S-1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most