BNUMBER:  B-278514 
DATE:  February 4, 1998
TITLE: Banknote Corporation of America, Inc., B-278514, February 4,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Banknote Corporation of America, Inc.

File:     B-278514

Date:February 4, 1998

Hopewell H. Darneille, III, Esq., and Brett Bacon, Esq., Verner, 
Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where solicitation provision called for a 180-day bid acceptance 
period and clearly  advised bidders to disregard a standard form 
provision (contained elsewhere in the solicitation) requesting a 
minimum 60-calendar day bid acceptance period, bid offering a 
60-calendar day bid acceptance period was properly rejected as 
nonresponsive.

DECISION

Banknote Corporation of America, Inc. protests the rejection of its 
bid as nonresponsive under an invitation for bids (IFB) for Program 
No. D381-S, issued by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the 
printing of social security cards.  GPO rejected the bid because it 
did not contain the minimum bid acceptance period required by the 
solicitation.  We deny the protest.

The IFB was issued on July 17, 1997.  Page one of the solicitation 
provided as follows:

     BIDDERS PLEASE NOTE:  THE MINIMUM TIME PERIOD FOR ACCEPTANCE OF 
     BIDS ON PROGRAM D381-S BY THE GOVERNMENT IS 180 CALENDAR DAYS.  
     TO BE RESPONSIVE, A BIDDER MUST INSERT IN THE BID ACCEPTANCE 
     PORTION OF GPO FORM 910 A BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OR 
     MORE.  IT IS CAUTIONED THAT IF THE BIDDER MAKES NO ENTRY A BID 
     ACCEPTANCE PERIOD OF 60 CALENDAR DAYS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE 
     APPLIED AND THE BID WILL BE RENDERED NONRESPONSIVE.  

Form 910, a standard form furnished by GPO to the bidders with the 
solicitation, stated as follows:

     [T]he undersigned agrees, if this bid is accepted within _____ 
     calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is 
     inserted by the bidder) from the date for receipt of bids, to 
     furnish the specified items at the price set opposite each item, 
     delivered at the designated point(s), in exact accordance with 
     specifications.

Directly below this language, in boldly blocked format, the standard 
form stated as follows:  "Notice:  Failure to provide a 60 day bid 
acceptance period may result in expiration of your bid prior to 
award."

Bids were opened on August 15.  Banknote was the low bidder with a bid 
of $858,600; the only other bidder, American Bank Note Company, bid 
$868,400.  However, the protester had inserted the number "60" as its 
bid acceptance period on Form 910.  The agency rejected the 
protester's bid as nonresponsive for failure to offer the 180-day 
acceptance period called for on page one of the IFB; this protest 
followed.

The protester principally argues that the IFB was fundamentally 
defective, and that its bid therefore should not be rejected as 
nonresponsive, because Form 910 did not cross-reference the 180-day 
minimum bid acceptance requirement on page one, thereby "causing a 
classic pitfall to ensnare bidders into a state of nonresponsiveness."  
In support of its position that it was misled into making its bid 
nonresponsive to the 180-day minimum acceptance period requirement, 
the protester cites our decision in 52 Comp. Gen. 842, 845 (1973), in 
which we stated as follows:

     [W]here an invitation contains language specifying a bid 
     acceptance period and another separate provision located 
     elsewhere in the invitation sets forth a minimum bid acceptance 
     period, the two provisions should be cross-referenced in such 
     manner as to specifically direct bidders' attention to the fact 
     that insertion of a shorter period will cause the bid to be 
     rejected.

In that 1973 decision, we concluded that, since the two conflicting 
provisions were not cross-referenced, the protester had been misled 
into offering an inadequate acceptance period, and that it therefore 
would be improper to reject the bid as nonresponsive on this basis.  
Banknote urges that we reach the same conclusion here.

The agency properly rejected Banknote's bid.  Here, unlike in the 1973 
case, the solicitation on page one specifically cross-referenced the 
standard bid acceptance provision of Form 910 and clearly explained 
how bidders should deal with the conflicting acceptance period 
provision, i.e., they should disregard the 60-calendar day provision 
on Form 910 because the agency required 180 calendar days.  There was 
nothing confusing or unclear about this explanation or about which 
provision was being referenced.  

The protester essentially insists that--under our 1973 decision--the 
solicitation was required to include a second cross-reference, from 
Form 910 back to the page one explanation (in addition to the 
cross-reference from page one to Form 910).  Our decision establishes 
no such requirement.  While we concluded that cross-referencing is 
necessary to eliminate confusion from apparently inconsistent minimum 
acceptance period provisions, this purpose clearly is served by the 
unequivocal explanation the agency included in the 180-day requirement 
on page one.  Reasonable bidders, who are expected to scrutinize 
carefully the entire solicitation package, International Medical 
Indus., Inc., B-208235, Oct. 29, 1982, 82-2 CPD  para.  386 at 5, should not 
have been misled, given the first page's explanation and 
cross-reference to Form 910.  In short, we find that the solicitation 
was sufficiently clear to enable a bidder to know the required bid 
acceptance period.  See id. at 5-6.

While acknowledging that it is well established that a minimum 
acceptance period requirement is material and must be met at the time 
of bid opening, see Perkin-Elmer Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 27, 29 (1989), 
89-2 CPD  para.  352 at 3, Banknote argues in the alternative that its 
insertion of 60 days on Form 910 was inadvertent and should be waived 
as a minor informality.  More specifically, it asserts, given the 
current economic environment of low price inflation, offering a 
shorter than required acceptance period should not be viewed as 
conferring any significant competitive advantage, and a low bid 
offering such a shorter period thus should not be deemed 
nonresponsive.  This argument is without merit.  While avoiding the 
threat of inflation is one reason why bidders may wish to limit the 
time for accepting their bids, a longer acceptance period obviously 
also exposes a bidder to greater business risk generally.[1]  A bidder 
which is allowed to specify a shorter acceptance period would have an 
unfair advantage over its competitors, since it would be able either 
to refuse award after its bid acceptance period expired, should it 
decide it no longer wanted the contract (whether because of 
unanticipated cost increases, market fluctuations, shortages, or 
better profit opportunities elsewhere), or to extend its bid 
acceptance period after competing bids have been exposed.  See id.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Moreover, while the economy as a whole may be experiencing low 
inflation, particular industries may be subject to inflationary 
pressures.