(Editor’s Note. Since the practical meaning of most regulations are what the appeals boards and courts say they are, the following summarizes important decisions in the last year. This is the second article where last issue we focused on cost and pricing issues here we will address evaluations of proposals, successful and unsuccessful protests and justifications of price adjustments on contracts due to changes and mistakes. This article is based on the January 2000 issue of Briefing Papers written by Marshall Doke, William Whitehall and Neil Cannon of the law firm of Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P.)

To be considered for award a bidder must be responsive and numerous cases have clarified the elements of responsiveness. The bid must contain an unequivocal offer to perform without exception the exact thing called for in the Invitation for Bid (IFB) (Interstate Construction). Responsiveness must be ascertained from bid documents themselves not from clarifications provided by the bidder after opening because such later clarifications would be tantamount to granting an opportunity for a new bid (Ellicott Engineering, Inc.). Examples of non-responsive bids are where a bidder attempts to impose conditions that would modify material requirements of the IFB or limits the government’s liability or rights of government under any contract clause such as qalifying terms and conditions (Walashek Indus. & Marine) or taking exceptions to delivery terms (Valley Forge Flag Co.). In addition a bidder may not be given the opportunity to correct a bid to remove a material qualification (Interstate Const.).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}