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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptagct0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
oComptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: Sillcocks Plastics International, Inc.
File: B-277549
Date: September 19, 1997
Thomas Kaz for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Bid in which required price was omitted was properly rejected by the agency as
nonresponsive where the price, which provided the basis on which payments for
additional required quantities would be calculated, was essential requirement of the
solicitation.
DECISION
Sillcocks Plastics International, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid by the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 427-894.
Sillcocks contends that since its bid was low, it should have received the award.
We deny the protest.
The IFB, issued June 26, 1997, sought bids on the production of 1,000,000
(+/- 25,000) plastic identification cards for use by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. The delivery schedule specified shipment of the first 100,000 cards to arrive
at the destination by July 24, 1997, and the remaining cards to arrive by August 7.
Bids were to include the cost of all materials and operations for the total quantity
ordered. The IFB specifically provided that [i]n addition, a price must be
submitted for each additional 1,000 copies, which price was to be based on a
continuing run, exclusive of all basic or preliminary charges. This entry was not
considered part of the price evaluation for purposes of award determination. The
IFB also included a preprinted bid sheet which provided blanks marked BID,
Additional, and Rate.
Sillcocks submitted a bid for $45,700 for the basic quantity of 1,000,000 and in the
additional blank inserted the figure $1,142.50. In the rate blank, Sillcocks
inserted the following: .25 For expedite delivery of first 100,000 cards. While
Sillcocks's bid was lowest for the base amount, the contracting officer found the
additional rate information ambiguous. Instead of providing a price as required for](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptagct0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)