TITLE:  RR Donnelley, Inc., B-294395, September 15, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294395
DATE:  September 15, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   RR Donnelley, Inc.

   File:            B-294395

   Date:              September 15, 2004

   Frederic G. Antoun Jr., Esq., for the protester.

   David T. Ralston, Esq., Foley & Lardner, for Banta Catalog Group, a
division of Banta Corporation, an intervenor.

   Jennifer R. Seifert, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.

   Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Awardee's bid including guaranteed maximum weights for each of two
packages rather than a single guaranteed maximum weight, as called for by
solicitation, was responsive; providing second guaranteed weight did not
constitute exception to material solicitation requirement, and awardee's
evaluated bid was low when calculated using only the greater of the two
guaranteed weights.

   DECISION

   RR Donnelley, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Banta Corporation
under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 303-013, issued by the Government
Printing Office (GPO) for bids to print two Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
publications.  Donnelley complains that Banta's bid should have been
rejected as nonresponsive.

   We deny the protest.

   The IFB requested bids to print, bind and otherwise prepare 3,994,000
copies of IRS pamphlet 1040A-1 (80 pages) and 2,947,000 copies of IRS
pamphlet 1040A-2 (90A pages).  The IFB provided that price would be
evaluated by adding together the extended prices bid for the specified
tasks and transportation charges.  The IFB required bidders to provide a
"Guaranteed maximum weight of package (toA 000.1A pound) _____," which the
agency used to compute the transportation charges.  Donnelley bid
$2,174,543 to perform the work and listed the guaranteed maximum weight of
its package as .375 pounds.  Using this weight, GPO computed Donnelley's
transportation charges as $976,284.17, resulting in a total evaluated bid
of $3,150,827.17.  Banta bid $2,235,227.94 to perform the work and
included two guaranteed maximum weights in its bid--.3142 pounds for
1040-A1 and .3633 pounds for 1040-A2.  GPO used both weights in computing
the transportation charges for Banta's pamphlets as $745,752.85, which
resulted in a total evaluated bid price of $2,980,980.79.  The agency made
award to Banta as the low bidder.

   Donnelley protests that Banta's bid should have been rejected as
nonresponsive for including different guaranteed maximum weights for the
two pamphlets instead of the single weight called for by the IFB. 

   The test for responsiveness is whether a bid offers to perform the exact
thing called for in an IFB, so that acceptance of the bid will bind a
bidder to perform in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of a
solicitation without exception.  Fire Sec. Sys. Inc., Ba**259076, Mar. 2,
1995, 95-1 CPD P 124 at 3.  Here, the agency requested the guaranteed
maximum weight to establish the maximum amount that could be reimbursed to
the contractor for transportation costs, which amount was to be added to
the bids for evaluation purposes.  Banta's inclusion of a second, lesser,
weight for the 1040-A1 pamphlets did not reduce or otherwise affect
Banta's performance obligations, and therefore did not affect the
responsiveness of Banta's bid. 

   While a bid also must be rejected as nonresponsive if it is ambiguous
regarding the actual price the government would be obligated to pay upon
acceptance of the bid, Murray Serv. Co. t/a EMD Mech. Specialists,
B-274866, Dec. 9, 1996, 96a**2A CPD PA 220 at 2, that clearly is not the
situation here.  Banta's properly evaluated bid price--that is, its price
based on a single guaranteed weight--can be calculated using the greater
of the two weights provided in Banta's bid.  GPO has performed this
calculation and reports--and Donnelley has not refuted--that Banta's bid
remains low when transportation costs are calculated in this way.  Thus,
Banta's evaluated bid price was clear and its bid, therefore, responsive. 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel