BNUMBER:  B-276999.2 
DATE:  October 21, 1997
TITLE: Contract Lease Management, Inc., B-276999.2, October 21, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Contract Lease Management, Inc.

File:     B-276999.2

Date:October 21, 1997

Sam Z. Gdanski, Esq., for the protester. 
Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for Block 
Management, Inc., an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Capt. Philip T. McCaffrey, Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Glenn Wolcott, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Contracting officer properly rejected the protester's bid as 
nonresponsive where the invitation for bids (IFB) required the 
submission of the manufacturer's name and model number for the washers 
and dryers to be supplied under the solicitation in order to establish 
that a bidder's specifically identified equipment would satisfy the 
IFB's listed requirements and the protester did not identify in its 
bid the specific washers being offered.  

DECISION

Contract Lease Management, Inc. (CLMI) protests the rejection of its 
bid as nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DAKF48-97-B-0006, issued by the Department of the Army for the 
purchase of washers and the lease of dryers for installation at 
various locations at Fort Hood, Texas, and the subsequent conversion 
of the IFB to a request for proposals (RFP).

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued April 15, 1997, was for the purchase of top-loading 
horizontal-axis (h-axis) clothes washing machines and the lease of 
four types of clothes drying machines,[1] along with associated 
maintenance and repair services.  The solicitation contemplated the 
award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract 
for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options.  Under the terms of 
the IFB, the agency reserved the right to make two separate awards, 
one for the washers and one for the dryers.

The IFB's statement of work (SOW) listed the minimum requirements for 
each item of equipment.  Among other things, the IFB required that the 
washer be a commercial, top-loading h-axis washer, and that the double 
load gas dryers and stacked double load gas dryers be equipped with 
6-inch exhaust ducts.  For each piece of equipment, the IFB required 
bidders to specify the manufacturer, brand, and model that they were 
offering.  Additionally, the IFB included Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR)  sec.  52.212-1, which states, in relevant part, that, at 
a minimum, bidders must submit a technical description of the items 
being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the 
requirements in the solicitation.  The IFB also required bidders to 
submit descriptive literature with their bids in accordance with FAR  sec.  
52.214-21(c), which states, in relevant part, that the failure of 
descriptive literature to show that the product offered conforms to 
the requirements of this solicitation will require rejection of the 
bid.

Five bids, including CLMI's, were received by the May 13 bid opening.  
After withdrawal of the apparent low bid, CLMI's bid became low.  
However, CLMI's bid did not identify the manufacturer, brand, and 
model of the washing machine it was offering to provide.  
Additionally, the equipment CLMI proposed for the double load gas 
dryers and stacked double load gas dryers were equipped with 8-inch 
exhaust ducts rather than the 6-inch exhaust ducts required by the 
solicitation.  Finally, CLMI's bid did not include descriptive 
literature for either the washers or the dryers. 

The agency determined that CLMI's bid was nonresponsive for failing to 
identify the washer the bidder was offering and for offering 
unacceptable dryers.  Specifically, the agency found that it could not 
determine if CLMI was bidding a washer that conformed to the 
requirements of the IFB because CLMI did not identify the manufacturer 
or model of the washer in its bid.  The agency also found CLMI's bid 
to be nonresponsive for the double load gas dryers and the stacked 
double load gas dryers because they were equipped with 8-inch exhaust 
ducts rather than the 6-inch duct required by the solicitation.[2]  

Three other bids were also found nonresponsive because they offered 
equipment that was no longer being manufactured, or offered dryers 
with 8-inch exhaust ducts.  One firm submitted a bid on washers only 
that was considered responsive.  However, the agency determined that 
it was not in its best interests to award only the washer portion of 
the requirement because it believed that it could obtain a more 
reasonable cost by making a single award for both washers and dryers.  
The contracting officer determined, in accordance with FAR  sec.  
14.404-1(c)(8) to cancel the solicitation and, in accordance with FAR  sec.  
14.404-1(e)(1) and 15.103 to complete the acquisition by 
negotiation.[3]  Bidders were notified of the nonresponsiveness 
determinations, provided an explanation for the determinations and 
notified of the conversion.

CLMI protests that its proposal was responsive for both the washers 
and the dryers.  As to the washers, the protester argues that since 
its bid took no exception to the requirements, it should have been 
considered responsive.  As to the dryers, CLMI argues that the Dexter 
8-inch exhaust ducts are easily adapted to 6-inch duct vents.   
To be responsive, a bid must represent an unequivocal offer to provide 
the exact thing called for in the IFB, such that acceptance of the bid 
will bind the contractor in accordance with the solicitation's 
material terms and conditions.  Hagglunds Prinoth, B-238244, Apr. 12, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  385 at 2.  Here, the IFB clearly required the 
submission of a bid which identified by manufacturer and model the 
specific equipment that would be supplied, clearly stating that this 
information was necessary for the agency to determine whether the 
offered equipment, as specifically identified, would satisfy the 
agency's requirements.  Further, regarding the dryers, the IFB was 
unequivocal that 6-inch exhaust ducts were required.  

The record shows, and the protester does not dispute, that CLMI did 
not identify in its bid the manufacturer's name and model number for 
the washers it was offering.  Thus, the contracting officer could not 
evaluate whether the protester's unidentified washer would satisfy the 
IFB's stated requirements.  While the protester may not have taken 
exception in its bid to the IFB's requirements, this fact does not 
constitute the identification on the bid schedule of the specific 
equipment being offered or show that the unidentified washers would 
satisfy the IFB's requirements.  A bidder must demonstrate, including 
through submission of the specific manufacturer and model number 
where, as here, that information is required by the IFB, that its 
equipment will comply with the IFB's requirements.[4]  See Alaska 
Unlimited, B-257156, Sept. 2, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  87 at 3-4. 

The protester also complains that the cancellation of the IFB and 
subsequent conversion to negotiation creates the potential for an 
auction.  As discussed above, the FAR specifically provides that, when 
an IFB has been properly canceled because no responsive bids were 
received, the agency may complete the acquisition through negotiation.  
Accordingly, CLMI's complaint regarding conversion of the IFB to an 
RFP fails to state a valid basis for protest.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
    
1. The four types of dryers were single load electric dryers, single 
load gas dryers, double load gas dryers, and stacked double load gas 
dryers. 

2. The agency explains that adaptation of 8-inch exhaust ducts to 
6-inch vents was not acceptable because the potential buildup of 
carbon monoxide poses a health and safety risk. 

3. FAR  sec.  14.404-1(c)(8) provides that an IFB may be canceled and all 
bids rejected  after bid opening but before award, when no responsive 
bid has been received from a responsible bidder.  FAR  sec.  14.404-1(e)(1) 
provides that, where an IFB has been canceled because no responsive 
bids were received, the agency may complete the acquisition through 
negotiation, in accordance with FAR  sec.  15.103, which allows the 
contracting officer to negotiate and make award without issuing a new 
solicitation as long as stated criteria concerning notice, 
competition, and price are met. 

4. The protester argues that it subsequently submitted descriptive 
literature for a washer which conforms to the specifications and, 
therefore, its bid on the washers was responsive.  We disagree.  The 
responsiveness of a bid must be ascertained from the bid documents 
themselves, not from clarifications provided by the bidder after bid 
opening.  Schweigers, Inc., B-236071, Oct. 12, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  345 at 
3.  In any event, CLMI's submissions after bid opening suggest that 
its bid was, in fact, based on multiple washers with differing 
characteristics, some of which were acceptable to the agency and some 
of which were not.