BNUMBER:  B-277698 
DATE:  November 12, 1997
TITLE: DeLancey Printing, B-277698, November 12, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:DeLancey Printing

File:     B-277698

Date:November 12, 1997

M. J. Mintz, Esq., and Robert J. Moss, Esq., Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin 
& Oshinsky, for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where IFB stated that prices submitted signified request for offers of 
product quality level IV requirements and that to receive additional 
offers of level III requirements bidders had to check box requesting 
offers for production of both product quality level III and IV 
requirements, agency reasonably concluded that since bidder did not 
check box, it had elected to receive only level IV requirements.

DECISION

DeLancey Printing protests the decision by the Government Printing 
Office (GPO) not to issue quality level III orders to the firm under 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. 814-M.[1]  DeLancey argues that the GPO 
improperly found its bid nonresponsive for level III orders since the 
question of whether DeLancey is qualified to do
level III work concerns its responsibility.  DeLancey also argues that 
the IFB contains a latent ambiguity, which requires the IFB to be 
canceled and GPO's needs to be resolicited.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued on June 20, 1997, requested prices for GPO printing 
requirements for books and pamphlets.  While the IFB stated that the 
work would be either product quality level III or IV, bidders were to 
submit prices only for the quality level IV work.  The IFB advised 
bidders that prices for level III needs would be priced at 5 percent 
higher than the prices bid for level IV.  On the last page (page 29) 
of the IFB was the following provision:

          Submission of prices in the Schedule of Prices signifies a 
request for offers    of quality level IV requirements.  To receive 
additional offers of quality          level III requirements, check 
the box below:

          [ ] I request offers for production of quality level III and 
        IV requirements. 
DeLancey's bid included page 29 of the IFB.  However, Delancey did not 
check the box to show that it requested orders for level III work as 
well as level IV work.  As a result, the GPO determined that DeLancey 
bid for level IV orders only.

DeLancey argues that the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive for 
level III orders was improper since the question of whether it could 
perform level III work concerns the firm's responsibility.  It also 
argues that its failure to check the box to show that it requested an 
award for level III work was a correctable mistake.

We believe that the GPO correctly determined that on the basis of its 
bid, DeLancey could receive orders for level IV work, but not for 
level III work.  The IFB provision clearly states that orders will be 
offered for level IV work only unless the bidder checks the box to 
show that it also requests orders for level III work.  The provision 
has nothing to do with whether a bidder is qualified to perform at the 
designated quality level.  Simply, by not checking the box, under the 
plain language of this provision, DeLancey bid for level IV orders 
only.

We also find without merit the contention that DeLancey should be 
permitted to correct its bid to show that it will accept level III 
orders.  As discussed above, DeLancey submitted a bid only for level 
IV orders.  It now, in essence, wants to submit another bid for level 
III work--after bid opening has taken place.  Where the correction of 
a bid would permit the bidder to submit a new bid after bid opening, 
that correction may not be permitted.  Apex Micrographics, Inc., 
B-235811, Aug. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  205 at 3.

In its comments on GPO's report to our Office, DeLancey argued that 
the provision in question contains a latent ambiguity which requires 
the solicitation to be canceled and the procurement readvertised after 
the ambiguity is corrected.  
This argument is both untimely and lacking in merit.  In its comments 
on the agency report, DeLancey argued that, in response to the 
protest, GPO had "manufactured a new interpretation of the IFB" and 
that the agency "now claims that bidders were required to check the 
box on page 29 of the IFB in order to receive any Level III orders."  
(Emphasis in original.)  DeLancey claims that this "new" 
interpretation created a latent ambiguity that misled bidders, 
including the protester.  The allegation that the agency's 
interpretation had created a latent ambiguity is untimely, since it 
was not filed within 10 days after it was known.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(2) (1997).  In its initial protest, DeLancey had complained 
that the agency had improperly found that, because the firm had not 
checked the box on page 29 of the IFB, the firm would not be 
considered for any Level III requirement.  DeLancey was thus aware at 
the time it filed its protest that the agency's interpretation was 
that bidders were required to check the box on page 29 of the IFB in 
order to receive any Level III orders.  DeLancey did not allege an 
ambiguity at that time, and it could not do so for the first time in 
response to the agency report.

In any event, in order for an ambiguity--patent or latent--to exist, 
the language leading to the alleged ambiguity must be shown to have 
two or more reasonable meanings.  MLC Fed., Inc., B-254696, Jan. 10, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  8 at 5, and DeLancey has not shown any reasonable 
meaning of the provision at issue other than the one adopted by GPO.  
While DeLancey focuses on the word "additional" in the provision and 
suggests that it implies that anyone submitting a bid was 
automatically bidding on both quality level III and quality level IV 
requirements, in our view, that interpretation is unreasonable.  The 
sentence after the box ("I request offers...") makes clear that 
checking the box was necessary to receive any level III production 
offers.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. GPO has implemented a quality assurance through attributes program 
(QATAP) to ensure that products printed by contractors satisfy 
objectively measured quality levels.  QATAP contains five product 
quality levels.  Level III is good quality and Level IV is basic 
quality.  See Shepard Printing, B-260362 et al., June 6, 1995, 95-2, 
CPD  para.  119 at 2.