f the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST

Contracting agency properly rejected protesters offer as technically unacceptable
where the solicitation called for diesel generators to be delivered to Iraq and the
protester offered unleaded gasoline generators to be delivered to Kuwait.
DECISION

U.S. Reconstruction and Development Corporation (USRDC) protests the rejection
of its offer under solicitation No. W912D1-05-T-0076, issued by the U.S. Army
Contracting Command Kuwait to supply diesel-powered generators to be delivered
to Camp Bucca, Iraq.

We deny the protest.

On January 22, 2005, the U.S. Army Contracting Command Kuwait issued a
solicitation requesting offers to supply 30 diesel-powered generators to be delivered
to Camp Bucca, Iraq. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the firm
submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. The Army received nine
timely offers. USRDC submitted the lowest total price. However, USRDC proposed
an unleaded gasoline generator that it would deliver to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. The
contracting officer noted the deficiencies in generator type and delivery location in
USRDCs offer and rejected it as unacceptable. On March 20, the contracting officer
awarded the contract to Smart Traders, the firm with the lowest-priced, technically
acceptable offer, and this protest followed.

USRDC alleges that its offer mistakenly indicated that it would supply a gasoline
generator, as opposed to the diesel generator the solicitation required, and that the contracting officer had an obligation to examine the offers for such apparent
mistakes and to seek verification of any offer containing an apparent mistake. The
agency argues that the deficiencies in USRDCs offer do not constitute apparent
mistakes and that the offer in fact was technically unacceptable.

The contracting officer properly rejected USRDCs offer for failing to conform to the
terms of the solicitation. USRDC offered a gasoline-powered generator when the
solicitation called for a diesel-powered one, and quoted delivery to Kuwait instead of
the specified location in Iraq. Accordingly, the contracting officer properly rejected
the offer as technically unacceptable because it took exception to a material feature
of the item itself, as well as to the delivery requirements in the solicitation. See
American Fuel Cell & Coated Fabrics Co., B-293001, B-293020, Jan. 12, 2004, 2004
CPD ¶ 13 at 5, Ralph Constr., Inc., B-222162, June 25, 1986, 86-1 CPD ¶ 592 at 2-4.

In support of its argument that the contracting officer had an obligation to examine
USRDCs offer for apparent mistakes and to seek verification of any offer containing
an apparent mistake, USRDC cites Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 14.407
and § 15.508; neither provision is applicable here. FAR § 14.407 applies to correction
of mistakes in the context of sealed bids; the procurement here was not conducted
using sealed bid procedures. Similarly, FAR § 15.508 refers to post-award mistakes
in a contractors proposal and thus likewise is inapplicable here.
1


Finally, the protestor also argues that the contracting officer failed to indicate
whether the awardee met certain registration requirements, such as having a valid
and active DUNS number. Since USRDCs offer was properly found unacceptable,
and there is another firm besides the awardee eligible for award, USRDC is not an

1
While in a negotiated procurement a contracting officer generally has discretion to
engage in communications with an offeror to clarify mistakes, FAR § 15.306(b)(3)(i),
there simply was no reason for the contracting officer to even consider doing so
here. As noted above, USRDC took exception to two material terms of the
solicitation; in no way could those deficiencies in its proposal be regarded as
mistakes within the meaning of any of the FAR provisions discussed above. See,
e.g., U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029, B-293029.2, Jan. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 17 at 14
(setting forth circumstances that warranted the use of the provisions in FAR
§ 15.306(b)(3)(i), where it appeared to the contracting officer that an offerors price
might have been generated using an incorrect multiplier); MKB Constructors, Joint
Venture--Recon., B-250413.2, June 8, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 441 at 4 (noting that where bid
is otherwise responsive, and where bid establishes exact nature of error and
intended bid, FAR authorizes correction of an obvious clerical error apparent from
the face of the bid); Kentucky Bridge and Dam, Inc., B-235806, July 17,1989, 89-2 CPD
¶ 56 at 3 (noting that correctible mistakes under FAR § 14.407-2 include an obvious
misplacement of a decimal point or the use of an obviously incorrect discount).

Page 2

B-296195 interested party to raise this argument. 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(a) (2005); see TRS Research,
B-283342, Nov. 4, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 85 at 4. In any event, we note that the agency
reports that the awardee has complied with all of the registration requirements of the
solicitation.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
Page 3

B-296195