ABCDE DENIED: July 6, 1992 GSBCA 11815-P ATLANTA TRI-COMM, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Mychal H. Walker, President of Atlanta Tri-Comm, Inc., Atlanta, GA, appearing for Protester. Colonel Ronald P. Cundick, MAJ Charles R. Marvin, Jr., and CAPT Sophia L. Rafatjah, Department of the Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, HYATT, and WILLIAMS. BORWICK, Board Judge. On May 1, 1992, Atlanta Tri-Comm, Inc. (Atlanta Tri-Comm), protested the Department of the Army's withdrawal from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program of a procurement for thirty-nine integrated digital multiline feature phones. Respondent moved to dismiss this count of the protest as untimely, as the regional SBA representative informed protester on March 23, 1992 that the procurement had been withdrawn. We granted respondent's motion. See Atlanta Tri-Comm, Inc., GSBCA 11815-P (May 18, 1992). In an amended protest dated May 11, 1992, protester alleged bad faith on the part of the Government in the subsequent competitive procurement for the same goods. For reasons set forth below, we deny the protest. Findings of Fact 1. The Department of the Army (Army) issued Information for Bids (IFB) number DABT23-92-B-0037, on March 31, 1992, for thirty-nine pairs of integrated digital multiline feature phones for delivery to Fort Knox, Kentucky. The IFB called for supply of GTE Telecom equipment or an equal product. Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 1, C-1. The equipment is necessary to support the relocation of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and it must interconnect with the existing switching equipment at Fort Knox. Id., Exhibit 20 at 1; Transcript at 19. Installation was not required, only delivery. Transcript at 10. 2. In September 1991, for a previous procurement of identical goods, the agency had purchased the phones at a price of $3,484.35 per unit from GTE Telecom, Inc. Protest File, Exhibit 18; Transcript at 18. To determine the current estimated cost of procuring the equipment, the agency conducted a market survey by calling AG Communication Systems (formerly GTE Communication Systems, a subsidiary of GTE Telecom Incorporated) and determined that the cost was $2500.00 per pair. Protest File, Exhibits 16, 18; Transcript at 18. 3. On February 18, 1992, the Army offered this acquisition to the SBA for the 8(a) program. Due to the urgent need for this equipment, the Army requested that SBA reply by February 20, 1992. Protest File, Exhibit 9; Transcript at 18-19. Having received no response from SBA by February 24, 1992, the agency submitted a synopsis to the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) announcing a competitive solicitation for the requirement. Protest File, Exhibit 20 at 1; Transcript at 19. 4. By letter dated February 28, 1992, the Army received a letter from SBA's regional office accepting Atlanta Tri-Comm's offer. Protest File, Exhibit 10 at 1. SBA authorized the Army to negotiate directly with protester pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.808-1(b). Id. 5. By letter dated March 3, 1992, the Army requested a completed proposal with cost or pricing data from Atlanta Tri- Comm. Protest File, Exhibits 2, 11. The contract specialist, by facsimile, transmitted a bid schedule and specification sheet to protester and testified that she was trying to "see if [protester] . . . could in fact provide us the phones at a reasonable price . . . . I just wanted to see if he could in fact get the phones for us. We were not sure that they could." Transcript at 32. According to the contract specialist, if the agency had been negotiating with protester, the agency would have sent a package about forty pages in length. Id. at 33. 6. On March 11, 1992, Atlanta Tri-Comm proposed a total price of $163,672.59 ($4,197.73 per unit). Protest File, Exhibits 4 at 2, 20 at 1. Protester's price was approximately twenty-three percent higher than the estimated price. Transcript at 20; see Finding 2. Protester's supplier was AG Communications Systems. Protest File, Exhibit 3. 7. On March 11, 1992, the Army advised SBA that the proposed prices were too high, and that the Army would have to withdraw its offer if prices were not reduced. Protest File, Exhibits 12, 14, 20. On March 16, 1992, Atlanta Tri-Comm apprised the Army that the prices would not be any lower and, in fact, might increase since the time had expired within which the prices were guaranteed. The contract specialist informed SBA and protester that the Army was withdrawing the acquisition from SBA, but that protester would be on the mailing list for a competitive solicitation. Id. The contract specialist testified that, had protester offered $2,500.00 per unit, the acquisition would have been redirected to SBA. Transcript at 29, 34. 8. By letter dated March 20, 1992, AG Communication Systems informed the Army that the price for the equipment increased to $3,347.87. Protest File, Exhibit 17; Transcript at 21. In order to verify the accuracy of this price, it requested that GTE Telecom Incorporated (GTE) confirm this price and explain the price increase. Id., Exhibit 18; Transcript at 21-22. 9. On March 31, 1992, respondent issued an IFB calling for supply of integrated digital multiline feature phones "GTD Ally or Equal." Protest File, Exhibit 6. The IFB incorporated by reference Federal Acquisitions Requlatin clause 52.214-0010. That clause provides in pertinent part that "in case of discrepancy between a unit price and an extended price, the unit price will be presumed to be correct, subject to correction to the same extent and same manner as any other mistake." Id. 10. In response to the IFB, AG Communication Systems bid $2,515 including freight. Protest File, Exhibit 7; Transcript at 23. Protester bid a unit price of $2,500.00 per pair, but had a total extended price of $112,125.00. Protest File, Exhibit 6. The unit price of $2,500 multiplied by thirty-nine, the quantity called for in the IFB, equals $97,500, not $112,125. Protester's principal testified at the hearing on the merits of the protest that its total price reflected profit and overhead charges. Transcript at 13-14, 23. 11. Because protester's unit price did not match its total price, the contract specialist asked protester to verify its price or withdraw its bid. Protester did neither. Transcript at 23. The contracting officer advised protester that its "failure to request withdrawal of [its] bid due to mistake, requires this office to reject [the] bid as nonresponsive pursuant to [FAR 14-406-(3)(g)(5)(ii)]." Protest File, Exhibit 21. If protester had verified its line item bid, it would have received the award. Transcript at 23-24. Award was made to AG Communications System as low responsive bidder. Protest File, Exhibit 7; Transcript at 34. Discussion Protester in its posthearing brief argues about respondent's withdrawal of the procurement from SBA's 8(a) program, but we have ruled that issue untimely, Atlanta Tri-Comm, Inc., GSBCA 11815-P (May 18, 1992), and do not consider it further. We turn to protester's allegations of bad faith in the subsequent competitive procurement. Protester's principal contention on this issue is that respondent "created an environment of unfair competition when it allowed the manufacturer to bid against a disadvantaged firm it had previously quoted prices that were inflated." Protester's Post Hearing Brief at 2. We understand protester's argument to be that respondent erred in allowing AG Communications System to bid when that same company quoted inflated prices to protester when respondent was considering using the 8(a) program for this procurement. Protester has not proven that respondent acted in bad faith in conducting the procurement. Protester feels aggrieved by AG Communications Systems' allegedly inflated prices during respon- dent's consideration of the 8(a) acquisition, but has not shown why the Government should be held responsible. Further, respondent was obligated to consider AG Communications Systems' bid in the competitive procurement. Respondent is obligated to secure "all bids" 48 CFR 14.401 (1991)(FAR 14.401), "personally and publicly open all bids" received before the time set for opening of bids (FAR 14.402-1(a) and to "make a contract award . . . to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation, will be most advantageous to the Government considering only price and price-related factors . . . included in the invitation." FAR 14.407-1. Protester's bid was ambiguous in view of the discrepancy between its unit price and extended price. In view of protester's refusal to clarify its price, protester's bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive. Bid responsiveness requires an unequivocal offer to provide without exception exactly what is required at a firm-fixed price. Thus, a bid is nonresponsive if it is ambiguous as to price and it is low only under one of two reasonable interpretations. Associated Mechanical, Inc., B- 243892, 91-2 CPD 192, at 2, Aug. 23, 1991. In the absence of protester's clarifying its price ambiguity, the contracting officer could not know whether protester had bid $112,125 or $97,500. Protester's bid was properly rejected for ambiguity. Decision The protest is DENIED. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: ____________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ___________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge