BNUMBER:  B-261506.2
DATE:  November 7, 1995
TITLE:  Adler Construction, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Adler Construction, Inc.

File:     B-261506.2

Date:     November 7, 1995

Rosemary Hanna Hayes, Esq., and Paul W. Moses II, Esq., Maguire, 
Voorhis & Wells, for the protester.
Christopher P. Kneib, Esq., Cynthia S. Guill, Esq., and Diane D. 
Hayden, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Contracting officer properly rejected bid containing language that 
made it uncertain, absent post-bid opening explanation, whether bidder 
intended to provide ozone treatment system in accordance with 
specifications.

DECISION

Adler Construction, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Heard 
Construction, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N62467-94-B-2690, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command 
for installation of an ozone water treatment system.  Adler contends 
that the Navy erroneously determined its bid to be nonresponsive.

We deny the protest.

On April 4, 1995, the agency issued the solicitation for a fixed-price 
contract to install a new ozone water treatment system and ancillary 
mechanical and electrical systems for cooling towers at the Naval Air 
Warfare Center in Orlando, Florida.  

Adler submitted the lowest of 11 bids received on May 18.  Item 17 of 
the bid form, standard form (SF) 1442, where Adler entered its bid 
price, contained the following notation:  "Price based on alternate 
ozone equipment than shown on drawings."  On May 19, in response to an 
inquiry by a contract specialist, Adler provided an explanation of its 
bid, in which it denied taking exception to any of the solicitation 
requirements.

The Navy concluded, however, that it could not determine that the bid 
was responsive without consideration of the post-bid opening 
explanation.  Accordingly, by letter of July 12, the Navy rejected 
Adler's bid, and this protest followed.

Adler explains that the statement in item 17 of the SF1442 merely 
repeated what the solicitation provided.  The solicitation contained 
six drawings.  The fifth of these drawings, No. 5241588, the piping 
and equipment layout and flow diagram, used a Reztek model 2L-1050 
ozone generator to depict the process water ozonation flow.  The 
drawing contained a legend, specifically stating that the listing of a 
manufacturer was "intended only to convey the basis of design" and was 
not intended as a limitation on competition.  Further, amendment No. 
0003 to the IFB, dated May 4, elaborated on this guidance as follows:

     "The number of injectors and hand valves shown [on drawing No. 
     5241588] is intended to be conceptual only.  The number of 
     injectors and valves, and their arrangement, shall be as 
     necessary to meet the requirements of the specification."

Thus, Adler explains, it only inserted the language in item 17 of the 
SF 1442 to advise the agency that as permitted by drawing No. 5241588, 
the protester intended to provide another brand of ozone generator 
than the Reztek model shown on that drawing.  Adler concedes that it 
provided this information "unartfully" but argues that the agency is 
simply overanalyzing the bid.

To be responsive, a bid must unequivocally offer to provide the exact 
item or service called for in the IFB so that acceptance of the bid 
will bind the contractor to perform strictly in accordance with the 
IFB's material terms and conditions.  Astro-Valcour, Inc., B-253253, 
Aug. 30, 1993, 93-2 CPD  128.  An agency must reject any bid where 
the bidder attempts to impose conditions that would modify such 
material terms and conditions.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  
14.404-2(d); New Dimension Masonry, Inc., B-258876, Feb. 21, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  102.  Where a bid is ambiguous with respect to a material 
requirement, the bid must be rejected as nonresponsive.  Northwestern 
Motor Co., Inc., B-244334, Sept. 16, 1991, 91-2 CPD  249.

Here, drawing No. 5241588 depicted not only an ozone generator but 
pumps and an air compressor, with specific requirements for each.  
Absent any description of the equipment or any explanation as to which 
equipment the note at item 17 of the SF 1442 referred, the bid was 
ambiguous as to whether Adler intended to furnish equipment meeting 
the specifications.  This ambiguity rendered the bid nonresponsive.  
Id.  Adler's intention of providing a system meeting specifications 
becomes clear only when one considers the explanation provided in 
Adler's May 19 letter.  A bid which is nonresponsive on its face may 
not, however, be converted into a responsive bid by post-bid opening 
clarifications or corrections.  Plateau Elec. Constructors, Inc., 
B-256495, June 27, 1994, 94-1 CPD  384.

The record therefore supports the Navy's determination that Adler's 
bid was nonresponsive, since the bid was ambiguous and it would have 
been improper to consider Adler's explanation to establish the 
responsiveness of the bid.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States