BNUMBER:  B-265979
DATE:  January 11, 1996
TITLE:  Margaret Greenidge

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

Matter of:Margaret Greenidge

File:     B-265979

Date:     January 11, 1996

Margaret Greenidge for the protester.
Hal J. Perloff, Esq., Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected bid as nonresponsive where handwritten 
notation on the bid schedule that "yearly increases is based on 3% or 
COLA, whichever is greater" is subject to interpretation that 
protester failed to offer a firm, fixed-price bid.

DECISION
 
Margaret Greenidge protests the rejection of her bid as nonresponsive 
under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW35-95-B-0030, issued by the 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide mailroom services at the 
Corps's Detroit District office.  The protester alleges that the 
agency improperly rejected her low bid as nonresponsive.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued on June 23, 1995, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract and solicited lump-sum bids for a base year with 
4 option years.  It included a bid schedule that contained five bid 
items and provided that bids would be evaluated for award by adding 
the total price for all the options to the total price for the base 
year.

Greenidge submitted the apparent low bid at $203,102, but the firm 
placed the following handwritten notation at the bottom of the bid 
schedule:  "Note:  Yearly increases is based on 3% or COLA, whichever 
is greater."  The reference to a "COLA" was not defined or explained 
in the bid.  Thus, it is not clear if the COLA refers to a nationally 
recognized index or some index internal to the bidder.  In any event, 
the contracting officer concluded that Greenidge's notation created 
uncertainty as to whether the option year prices were firm (each was 
approximately 3 percent higher than the preceding year price), or 
would vary if the undefined cost of living exceeded 3 percent for any 
option year due to inflation.  Since the contracting officer was 
unable to determine from the face of the bid that Greenidge had 
submitted firm, fixed prices as required by the IFB, Greenidge's bid 
was rejected as nonresponsive.  This protest followed.

The protester insists that the notation on the bid schedule was simply 
an "explanatory statement" that a cost of living adjustment was 
already included in her bid prices as submitted.  The protester also 
states that the notation was never intended to apply to any future 
increases in her bid prices.  Greenidge further argues that the 
contracting officer was required to, but did not, seek clarification 
of the bid from Greenidge pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  14.405-2(e).

Greenidge's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive.  We agree with 
the agency that by submitting a bid with the notation that the yearly 
increases were based on "3% or COLA, whichever is greater", Greenidge 
introduced doubt as to whether she was bound to perform the mailroom 
services at the option year prices listed on the bid schedule or 
whether she would seek an upward price adjustment from the agency 
based on the notation.  Bid responsiveness requires an unequivocal 
offer to provide without exception exactly what is required at a firm, 
fixed price.  See Southern Atlantic Servs., Inc., B-252419, June 2, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  418.  Here, the protester's bid is subject to the 
reasonable interpretation that it is not a firm, fixed price bid, 
thereby rendering it nonresponsive.  M.A. Barr, Inc., B-189142, Aug. 
3, 1977, 77-2 CPD  77.

Moreover, since only information available at bid opening may be 
considered in making a determination of responsiveness, Greenidge's 
explanation as to what she intended could not be considered.  Roy 
McGinnis & Co., Inc., B-239710, Sept. 24, 1990, 90-2 CPD  251.  Nor 
would it be proper for the contracting officer to seek clarification 
from the protester because a bidder is not permitted to clarify 
information affecting a material requirement--the bidder's 
price--after bid opening.  See Basil Equip. Corp., B-237335, Feb. 13, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  187. 

Accordingly, the protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States