BNUMBER:  B-278243.4 
DATE:  March 18, 1998
TITLE: Joint Venture Conscoop-Meyerinck, B-278243.4, March 18, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Joint Venture Conscoop-Meyerinck

File:     B-278243.4

Date:March 18, 1998

Valentino Franzone for the protester.
Christopher M. Bellomy, Esq., and D. S. Shepherd, Esq., Department of 
the Navy, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

In response to low bidder's protest of the rejection of its bid as 
nonresponsive for failure to provide required information with its 
bid, contracting agency properly took corrective action by agreeing to 
accept and consider the information after bid opening where the 
information at issue concerned the bidder's competency to perform the 
contract--the bidder's responsibility--and not its performance 
obligation under the contract--the bid's responsiveness.

DECISION

Joint Venture Conscoop-Meyerinck protests corrective action taken by 
the Department of the Navy in response to a protest filed by A.I.A. 
Costruzioni, S.P.A.,  under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
N62470-95-B-4290, to extend a hydrant refueling system at the U.S. 
Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy.  Conscoop-Meyerinck argues that 
the Navy cannot now properly consider information that A.I.A. 
Costruzioni did not submit along with its low bid.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued March 7, 1997, required prospective 
contractors to submit pricing for a required line item for the work 
involved in extending the hydrant refueling system; an optional line 
item for pantographs; and an optional line item for closing existing 
fuel tanks.  IFB  sec.  000120 at 3; IFB  sec.  00200 at  para.  1.2.  Bids were to be 
evaluated and a contract was to be awarded based solely upon price.  
IFB  sec.  00200 at  para.  1.18(a).

Section 15901 of the IFB set forth some of the specifications 
applicable to the work to be performed under this contract.  Among 
other things, bidders were required to employ the services of an 
experienced system integrator to coordinate all fuel controls and 
instrumentation system work during construction, testing, calibration, 
and acceptance of the fuel system.  IFB  sec.  15901 at  para.  2.2.1.  Bidders 
were required to submit, with their bids, a certification of system 
integrator experience to include a description of at least three 
similar projects and a resume.  Id.  

The Navy received two bids by the September 16 bid opening.  A.I.A. 
Costruzioni submitted the low bid of $4,213,259, and 
Conscoop-Meyerinck submitted the second-low bid of $4,565,230.[1]  
However, the Navy rejected A.I.A. Costruzioni's low bid as 
nonresponsive because its bid was not accompanied by the required 
information concerning the system integrator.  The Navy awarded the 
contract to Conscoop-Meyerinck.

After the Navy denied A.I.A. Costruzioni's agency-level protest of the 
rejection of its bid, the firm filed a protest in our Office in which 
it argued, among other things, that it should have been allowed to 
provide this information after bid opening.  On the day the agency 
report was due, the Navy advised our Office of its determination that 
the protester's bid should not have been rejected as nonresponsive 
because the requirement at issue related to the protester's 
responsibility, not the responsiveness of its bid.  See, e.g., ECI 
Constr., Inc., B-250630, Oct. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  239 at 1-2.  
Information concerning a bidder's responsibility need not be furnished 
at bid opening but may be furnished up to the time of award.  Id.  The 
Navy stated that it had taken corrective action by asking A.I.A. 
Costruzioni to submit the required information to the agency for its 
responsibility determination.  Since the Navy's corrective action was 
responsive to the protester's concern, we dismissed the protest as 
academic.  EDP Enters., Inc., B-256368, June 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  366
at 6; see East West Research, Inc.--Recon., B-233623.2, Apr. 14, 1989, 
89-1 CPD  para.  379 at 2.  Performance of the contract awarded to 
Conscoop-Meyerinck was suspended shortly after A.I.A. Costruzioni 
filed its protest, and remains so while the Navy reviews the 
additional information submitted by the firm.  

After it was notified of the Navy's corrective action, 
Conscoop-Meyerinck filed the instant protest in which it asserts that 
it is improper for the Navy to receive, after bid opening, any 
additional documents, references, or facts from bidders.  According to 
the protester, since the IFB required bidders to submit this 
information along with their bids, and since A.I.A. Costruzioni did 
not submit the information at that time, its bid was properly 
rejected.  Conscoop-Meyerinck is mistaken.

Generally, a bid with a material omission cannot be corrected after 
bid opening; such a bid is regarded as nonresponsive and must be 
rejected.  Atlantic Co. of Am., Inc., B-241697, Jan. 16, 1991, 91-1 
CPD  para.  49 at 3.  Responsiveness concerns whether a bidder has 
unequivocally offered to provide or perform services in accordance 
with the solicitation.[2]  ECI Constr., Inc., supra, at 1.  However, 
not all information requested to be submitted with a bid involves 
responsiveness.  Instead, the information may relate to bidder 
responsibility, that is, the bidder's ability to perform.  Id. at 1-2.  
This type of information may be furnished up to the time of award.  
Id. at 2. 

Here, the submission of data to determine the bidder's 
competency--through its use of an experienced systems 
integrator--clearly is not related to the bidder's performance 
obligation under the contract, but is a matter of the bidder's 
responsibility, that is, its ability to perform the work.  Atlantic 
Co. of Am., Inc., supra; see also Beta Constr. Co., B-274511, Dec. 13, 
1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  230 at 2 (in general, solicitation requirements for 
information relating to a bidder's capability and experience pertain 
to the bidder's responsibility).  Although the solicitation stated 
that the information was to be submitted with the bid, an agency 
cannot change a matter of bidder responsibility into one of 
responsiveness by the terms of the solicitation.  Aviation 
Specialists, Inc.; Aviation Enters., Inc., B-218597,
B-218597.2, Aug. 15, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  174 at 3.  As a result, A.I.A. 
Costruzioni properly may furnish the information after bid opening in 
order for the Navy to determine whether the firm is competent to 
perform.  ECI Constr., Inc., supra, at 2; Atlantic Co. of Am., Inc., 
supra.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Bids were submitted in Italian lire and converted into U.S. dollars 
based upon the exchange rate in effect at the time of bid opening.  

2. While Conscoop-Meyerinck apparently believes that A.I.A. 
Costruzioni was able to bid a lower price because it "forgot" to 
include the system integrator in pricing its bid, the record shows 
that A.I.A. Costruzioni's bid took no exception to the IFB's 
specifications.  As a result, the firm has obligated itself to perform 
in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, including the 
requirement to employ an experienced system integrator, and its bid is 
responsive.