BNUMBER:  B-274845
DATE:  January 7, 1997
TITLE:  TRS Research

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

Matter of:TRS Research

File:     B-274845

Date:January 7, 1997

Robert G. Fryling, Esq., and Edward J. Hoffman, Esq., Blank Rome 
Comisky & McCauley, for the protester.
Johnny Litman III, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency.
Robert Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly rejected proposal as technically 
unacceptable and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the 
protester is denied where discussion question reasonably apprised 
protester of its proposal's technical deficiency, and protester failed 
to correct the deficiency unambiguously in its best and final offer.

DECISION

TRS Research (TRS) protests the rejection of its proposal as 
technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
M67004-96-R-0031, issued by the United States Marine Corps for 
collapsible flatrack containers to be used on shipboard to hold 
expeditionary airfield modules.  TRS alleges that the agency failed to 
conduct meaningful discussions and improperly determined that its 
proposal was technically noncompliant.

We deny the protest.

The RFP was issued on June 6, 1996, with an original closing date of 
July 7.   Award was to be made to the responsible offeror submitting 
the lowest priced technically acceptable offer.  Section 3.0 of the 
statement of work (SOW) provided that the minimum "clear loading" 
dimensions for the containers were 224.5 inches in length, 95.5 inches 
in width, and 89.79 inches in height.  Section 3.3 of the SOW required 
offerors to submit two complete sets of blueprint/design drawings 
indicating the container measurements in U.S. measures and bearing the 
stamped approval of an internationally recognized agency such as the 
American Bureau of Shipping or Lloyds Register of Industrial Services.

Amendment No. 0001 was issued on July 1, making certain changes to the 
SOW (but not to the dimensions or the drawing requirements) and 
further defining what "clear loading" meant.  The amendment also 
stressed the need to submit approved drawings stating that they were 
"necessary to evaluate vendors' proposals," and extended the closing 
date until July 17.

On July 12, TRS' president contacted the agency contracting specialist 
by telephone to discuss the amendment because he was concerned that 
the changes would require the firm to obtain revised drawings, which 
the protester believed could not be accomplished before the new 
closing date.  According to the president's account of the 
conversation, the contracting specialist "advised me at that time that 
it was not necessary to send in revised drawings."  TRS' president 
also states that he confirmed the conversation the same day by fax 
indicating that the firm would provide drawings and specifications if 
it was deemed necessary by the government.

According to the contracting specialist's account of the conversation, 
TRS' president "asked me if I would extend the closing date . . . 
because his drawings did not meet the specifications . . . and that he 
would not have time to get new drawings from the manufacturer in Italy 
and have them approved . . . before the 17th of July."  Her statement 
continues:

     "I told him we could not extend the closing date because we had 
     to make award by 30 September 1996 or we would lose the money.  I 
     told him that we evaluate all proposals and hold written 
     discussions with the offerors in the competitive range.  If he 
     was in the competitive range he would have a chance to submit 
     revised drawings that would comply with the specifications 
     required by amendment 0001.  I never told [him] that he did not 
     need to submit revised drawings.  At the time of the 
     conversation, I had not seen [his] drawings and would not have 
     told him that he didn't have to submit revised drawings.  That 
     would be tantamount to saying that he didn't need to submit 
     drawings at all."

Eight offers were received by July 17.  TRS' offer contained a 
narrative and approved drawings which stated loading dimensions in 
metric terms which, when converted to U.S. measurements, did not 
comply with the minimum clear loading requirements of the RFP.  On 
July 31, written discussions were conducted, and the contracting 
officer indicated the following deficiency to the firm:

     "3.0 Weight, Ratings, and Dimensions.  Weights, ratings and 
     dimensions are not in U.S. measurements. Conversion from metric 
     to U.S. measurements indicates container does not meet 
     specifications for minimum clear loading dimensions."

In the text of its best and final offer (BAFO), TRS agreed to meet the 
dimensional requirements of the specification and repeated the clear 
loading dimensions set forth in the SOW in U.S. measurements; attached 
to the text was a proposed manufacturer's specification sheet with the 
same U.S. measurements; however, no reference was made to modifying 
the earlier submitted drawings, and no new drawings were submitted in 
the BAFO.  TRS' BAFO was rejected as technically unacceptable because 
its text in U.S. measurements was in conflict with the unamended, 
nonconforming drawing which was submitted with the initial proposal.

We think the record reasonably supports the agency's actions here.  
First, under the circumstances we find the agency's version of the 
July 12 conversation more plausible than TRS' version.  However, even 
if we were to accept the protester's version, the solicitation clearly 
required the submission of compliant blueprint/design drawings, and 
the necessity for submitting such drawings was reemphasized in the 
amendment which indicated that they were to be the principal 
evaluation tool used by the agency.  Oral advice contrary to the terms 
of a solicitation does not bind the government, and an offeror relies 
on such advice at its own risk.  Systems 4, Inc., B-270543, Dec. 21, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  281.  Accordingly, we find without merit TRS' 
argument that the requirement for submitting compliant drawings had 
essentially been waived.

TRS' argument that the July 31 written discussions were inadequate 
because TRS was not specifically advised that its drawings were 
unacceptable is also unpersuasive.  The requirement for discussions 
does not mean that agencies must conduct all-encompassing discussions; 
rather, agencies are only required to lead offerors into those areas 
of their proposals needing amplification given the context of the 
procurement.  Creative Management Technology, Inc., B-266299, Feb. 9, 
1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  61.  Here, the solicitation as amended emphasized the 
importance of the drawings with certified dimensions for evaluation 
purposes, and the discussion question specifically focused on the need 
to correct these dimensions to conform to the solicitation's 
requirements; thus, discussions were adequate.  

Moreover, it is evident that TRS understood the problem the agency had 
with its proposal but created an ambiguity in its BAFO by failing to 
submit supporting drawings, electing instead to provide a blanket 
promise to comply with the specifications. 

It is the offeror's duty to include sufficiently detailed information 
in its proposal to establish that the equipment offered will meet the 
solicitation requirements and blanket statements of full compliance 
are insufficient to fulfill this obligation.  AZTEK, B-229525, Mar. 2, 
1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  218.  Where a proposal contains a blanket offer of 
compliance to meet specifications and also contains conflicting 
provisions which call that offer of compliance into question, the 
offer is ambiguous and may properly be rejected as technically 
unacceptable.  
Although the narrative in TRS' and the supporting manufacturer's 
statement contained compliant loading dimensions, these dimensions 
were in clear conflict with the dimensions set forth in TRS' required 
blueprint/design drawings.  Under these circumstances, the agency had 
a reasonable basis for its determination that the protester's proposal 
was technically unacceptable.  Id.

Finally, as to TRS' suggestion that its failure to submit revised 
drawings could be waived as a minor informality, Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.607 and 14.405 permit the waiver of minor 
informalities but define such informalities as those having, e.g., a 
negligible effect on quality.  Insofar as the containers are intended 
to store modules of a given dimension, it is simply incorrect to 
assert that a failure to accommodate these necessary dimensions can be 
viewed as having a negligible effect on quality.  Since the failure to 
submit drawings indicating compliance with critical dimensional 
requirements had a significant impact on quality, it was material and 
could not be waived.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States