______________________________
 
                         DENIED:  July 21, 1995
                     ______________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13283-P
 
 
                             SCIPAR, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Robert  E. Kinzly, President  of SCIPAR, Inc.,  Buffalo, NY,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Willie J. Williams, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington
   District, Huntington, WV, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, VERGILIO, and GOODMAN.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        This  protest involves a sealed-bid procurement conducted by
   the United States Army Corps of Engineers, respondent, for a lock
   and dam  remote control system.   Protester is SCIPAR, Inc.   The
   contracting officer determined SCIPAR, the low-priced  bidder, to
   be non-responsive to  certain requirements of the  invitation for
   bids (IFB).  SCIPAR protests the contracting officer's determina-
   tion; SCIPAR maintains that the  admitted defects in its bid were
   minor mistakes and correctable.  We conclude that the contracting
   officer was right  and that SCIPAR  is wrong.   The defects  con-
   cerned  material  matters  in  SCIPAR's bid  and  were  not minor
   informalities or correctable  mistakes as defined by  the Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR).  We therefore deny the protest.  
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        On February 10, 1995, respondent issued IFB DACW69-95-B-0009
   for  a firm  fixed price  contract  for supply  of five  separate
   remote control systems for certain  locks and dams along the Ohio
   and Kanawha rivers.  Protest File, Exhibit 2 at C-1.   The remote
   control  systems consist  of  ruggedized personal  computers with
   local telemetry  units (LTUs) and programmable  logic controllers
   (PLCs) to connect the LTUs and the operating stations.  Id. at C-
   1 to C-2,   C-2.2.   After each brand name or equal specification
   paragraph in the IFB, respondent provided lines where the bidders
   could designate the make and model of equipment bid as an "equal"
   product to the brand name.   Id. at C-10 to C-25.   We will refer
   to these lines as "bidding lines."  
 
   SCIPAR's bid errors
 
 
        Programmable logic controller software
 
        Paragraph C-4.2.6  originally called for  programmable posi-
   tion monitors.   Protest File, Exhibit 2  at C-11.  On  March 10,
   respondent issued amendment  one to the  IFB, which, among  other
   things,  deleted the  existing  specification paragraph  C-4.2.6.
   Id., Exhibit 3.  The  amendment, however, indicated that the next
   specification for PLC programming software, which in the original
   IFB  was numbered paragraph  C-4.2.7, would be  re-numbered para-
   graph C-4.2.6.   Id. at C-11.  The change was noted by a vertical
   black line to the  left of the new number for  the specification.
   Id. 
 
        In response to the requirement for PLC programming software,
   SCIPAR  placed in the bidding line "PM255-4 Programmable Position
   Monitor."  Protest File, Exhibit 4 at C-12.  SCIPAR explains this
   defect in  its  bid: the  deletion of  the monitors  and the  re-
   numbering of the  paragraphs left the bidding line  for the newly
   re-numbered requirement for  software in  approximately the  same
   place as the  original but deleted the requirement  for the moni-
   tors.   Protester's Memorandum in  Support of Motion  for Summary
   Relief at 3.  SCIPAR  transcribed the information it had prepared
   for the original IFB onto the amended IFB.  Id.  The bid does not
   identify an item responsive to paragraph C-4.2.6.
 
        Uninterruptible power supply
 
        Paragraph  C-4.3 specified  an uninterruptible  power supply
   (UPS), and  called out  Best Power  Technologies' catalog  number
   ME850VA as the brand name.  Protest File, Exhibit 3 at C-12.  
 
        On the bidding  line for that paragraph, SCIPAR  put the APS
   24-2.2/0V2-24 power  supply.   Protest File,  Exhibit 4  at C-12.
   That item was not an  uninterruptible power supply.  Id., Exhibit
   7.  To add to the confusion, SCIPAR's narrative in its bid stated
   that SCIPAR would  provide a Best Power Model  KE850VA UPS, while
   the  descriptive literature  enclosed  in the  bid  was for  Best
   Power's FE series of UPSs.  Id., Exhibit 4 at 104.  
 
        Analog output module
 
        Paragraph  C-4.4.5  required  bidders to  supply  an  analog
   output  module.  The  IFB specified  as the  brand name  item the
   Square D  Company, Class 8030,  Type ROM-121, or equal.   Protest
   File, Exhibit 3 at C-14.  Neither the paragraph numbering nor the
   content of the specification was  changed by amendment one to the
   IFB.  Compare id., Exhibit 2 at C-14 with Exhibit 3 at C-15.  
 
        On the bidding line for the analog output module, SCIPAR bid
   the RIM-121 analog  input module,  manufactured by  the Square  D
   Company.  Protest  File, Exhibit 4 at C-14 to C-15.  The specifi-
   cation  for the  analog input  module was  found at  paragraph C-
   4.4.6.1, and  for that  paragraph, SCIPAR  again bid the  RIM-121
   analog input  module manufactured by  the Square D Company.   Id.
   SCIPAR's bid narrative mentioned an analog input-output device as
   one of  the modules that  comprise a PLC;  the narrative did  not
   explicitly  state that  SCIPAR would  provide  the analog  output
   module as part of its bid.  Id. at 100-01.  SCIPAR's bid included
   descriptive  literature for  both the  class  8030, type  RIM-121
   standard analog  output module and  the class 8030,  type ROM-121
   output module produced by the Square D Company.  Id. at 116, 118.
 
 
        Programmable logic controller enclosure
 
        Paragraph C-4.4.1  of  the  IFB  specified  the  performance
   capabilities of the PLC system,  and specified, for the enclosure
   of the PLC  system, the  Hoffman catalog  number A-363612LP  with
   interior mounting panel A36P36, or equal.  The  numbers represent
   the dimensions of the items, that is, in inches, 36 by  36 by 12.
   Protest File, Exhibit 3 at C-13. 
 
        On the bidding line, SCIPAR bid the "A-3636LP Enclosure with
   the A35P35" panel  (emphasis added).  Protest File,  Exhibit 4 at
   C-13.  SCIPAR  thus left off the "twelve" in  the Hoffman catalog
   number for the enclosure and misstated the catalog number for the
   interior mounting panel.  Compare Protest File, Exhibit 3 at C-13
   with Exhibit  4 at C-13.   Protester's Figure  0.2(a) of its  bid
   showed dimensions  for the  cabinet of 36  inches for  height, 36
   inches for width,  and 18 inches  for depth.   Id., Exhibit 4  at
   Figure 0.2(a).
      
   Bid opening and award
 
        SCIPAR was  the low  bidder, having  bid $662,922,  with the
   next low bidder, C&M Technology, bidding $699,470.  Protest File,
   Exhibit 6.  The contracting officer determined that  SCIPAR's bid
   was  non-responsive due  to the  defects in  its bid  relating to
   paragraphs C-4.2.6, C-4.3, and C-4.4.5  of the IFB.  Id., Exhibit
   10.   Respondent awarded  the contract to  C&M Technology  as the
   low-priced, responsive bidder.  Id., Exhibit 9.
 
   Descriptive literature clause
 
        The  descriptive literature clause  of this IFB  provided in
   pertinent part: 
 
        (a) Descriptive literature means information . . . that
        is submitted as  part of a bid.  Descriptive literature
        is required to  establish, for the purposes  of evalua-
        tion and award, details of the product offered that are
        specified elsewhere  in the solicitation and pertain to
        significant elements such as (1) design; (2) materials;
        (3)  components; (4)  performance characteristics;  and
        (5) methods of manufacture,  assembly, construction and
        operation.    The  term includes  only  information  to
        determine  the technical  acceptability of  the offered
        product.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 2 at L-10.     
 
                               Discussion
 
        SCIPAR  argues  that the  admitted defects  in its  bid were
   "obvious"  and that the  "contracting officer acted  with nonfea-
   sance  by not  complying with  the procedures  in FAR  14.406 for
   correction of  mistakes and/or  verification of  the bid."   Pro-
   tester's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Relief at 2.
 
 
        To be considered for award, a bid must comply in all materi-
   al  respects with  the invitation  for  bids.   48 CFR  14.301(a)
   (1994) (FAR 14.301(a)).   The bid as submitted  must represent an
   offer to provide, without exception, the exact item(s) called for
   in  the IFB.   Bulloch  International,  Inc., B-237369,  90-1 CPD
     153, at 4 (Feb. 5, 1990).  Regulation requires rejection of any
   bid that  fails to conform  to the essential requirements  of the
   invitation for bids.  FAR 14.402-2.      
 
        FAR 14.406-2 provides that any clerical mistake, apparent on
   its face in the bid, may be corrected  by the contracting officer
   before award.   The contracting officer  shall first obtain  from
   the bidder a verification of  the bid intended.  FAR 14.406-2(a).
   The  FAR gives  examples  of  clerical  mistakes,  i.e.,  obvious
   misplacement of a decimal point, incorrect discounts, reversal of
   price f.o.b.  destination and  price f.o.b.  origin, and  obvious
   mistake in designation  of a unit.   Id.  To be  "apparent on its
   face," the error  and the intended bid must  be apparent.  Action
   Service  Corp., B-254861,  94-1 CPD    33, at  3 (Jan.  24, 1994)
   (correction of  clerical error  in one  unit price  allowed where
   corrected  unit price only reasonable interpretation of bid); cf.
   Bullrun Mountain Honey Co., B-243325,  91-1 CPD   344, at 2 (Apr.
   3,  1991) (correction of waiver of small disadvantaged evaluation
   preference disallowed,  where it  was not  evident from bid  that
   protester  desired the evaluation  preference).  A  mistake which
   raises questions as to whether the bidder  will supply conforming
   products is material and not  a minor clerical mistake.  Kirkland
   Sales, Inc., B-249090, 92-2 CPD   278, at 5 (Oct. 23, 1992).
 
        The  FAR allows correction  of mistakes other  than clerical
   errors in bids which "as submitted, are responsive to the invita-
   tion and  may not be  used to correct  bids to make  them respon-
   sive."  FAR  14.406-3.  Correction of bidding  errors, therefore,
   under this subsection of the  FAR is permissible only for respon-
   sive  bids.  A bid  cannot be made  responsive under this section
   through  a claim  of  error.   See  University  Systems, Inc.  v.
   Department  of Energy,  GSBCA  11754-P,  92-2  BCA    24,932,  at
   124,288, 1992 BPD   93, at 4.
 
        For the  purposes of  FAR 14.406-2, the  four areas  of non-
   responsiveness in  SCIPAR's bid  were not  mistakes "apparent  on
   [their] face in the bid."  That is, the contracting officer could
   not look at  the bid and determine  from the bid itself  what, if
   anything,  SCIPAR intended  to  supply.   We  discuss each  error
   below.  
   Programmable logic controller software
 
        The contracting  officer could  not determine  from SCIPAR's
   bid that SCIPAR intended to supply PLC programming software.  The
   contracting officer would have had to guess at PLC software since
   SCIPAR's bid did not mention the software.  
 
   Uninterruptible power supply
 
        Similarly,  regarding  the  UPS,  even  if  the  contracting
   officer ignored that SCIPAR did not propose a UPS on  the bidding
   line for  that item, he still would have  had to guess at exactly
   what UPS SCIPAR  would deliver, assuming  SCIPAR would deliver  a
   UPS at all.  SCIPAR's  narrative mentioned Best Power's KE series
   of UPS while the technical literature referenced the Best Power's
   FE series.  
 
   Analog output module
 
        SCIPAR put an analog input module on the bidding line for an
   analog  output module;  its narrative  only  mentioned an  analog
   output module as  a component  of a  PLC and did  not promise  to
   supply  an analog output module.   Again, the contracting officer
   would have had to guess whether  SCIPAR was even going to  supply
   an analog  output module, much  less what brand of  analog output
   module SCIPAR would supply and whether the brand bid (if the item
   were bid) would meet specifications.  
 
   Programmable logic controller enclosure
 
        SCIPAR's bid for  the PLC enclosure  was confusing.   SCIPAR
   apparently intended  to bid the  specified model, but left  out a
   number associated with the model  specification--the depth dimen-
   sion  of twelve  inches.   SCIPAR's chart  for the  PLC enclosure
   showed a  depth of  eighteen inches, six  inches deeper  than the
   specified dimension for the brand name product.  
 
   SCIPAR's response
 
        SCIPAR says the "obvious mistakes" in SCIPAR's bid "were not
   material."  In light  of the errors noted above, this argument is
   unpersuasive and ill-founded.   The bid did not  establish on its
   face  that SCIPAR was  committed to supply  PLC programming soft-
   ware, a  UPS, an analog output module,  or a PLC system enclosure
   of the correct  dimensions.  Each of  the above-described defects
   went to the responsiveness of the bid.  
 
        The  defects  in  SCIPAR's  bid  regarding  the  programming
   software, the UPS,  and the analog output module  went to whether
   the  specified  items  were bid  at  all.   SCIPAR's  descriptive
   literature  for the  PLC  system enclosure  merely  added to  the
   confusion as  to whether  the PLC  enclosure met  specifications,
   because the descriptive literature contained an out-of-specifica-
   tion dimension for the depth of that enclosure.  
 
        SCIPAR  maintains  that  "when   descriptive  literature  is
   required as  part of  the bid it  has precedence  in establishing
   what the bidder proposes to  furnish."  Protester's Memorandum in
   Support  of  Motion for  Summary Relief  at 4.   SCIPAR  does not
   furnish a citation for this proposition.  The descriptive litera-
   ture clause in this IFB required descriptive literature to enable
   the  Government to evaluate details  of the products offered, not
   whether products were  being offered at all.   SCIPAR argues that
   the listing, in a descriptive literature table of contents, shows
   that SCIPAR would supply the product.  We do not agree; a list of
   descriptive literature  is not by  itself a commitment  to supply
   the product.          
        Finally,  SCIPAR submitted  its  pricing  work  sheets  (not
   submitted with its bid) as part  of its record submission to show
   that it  had intended  to bid in  conformity with  the specifica-
   tions.   Protester's Memorandum in  Support of Motion for Summary
   Relief at 7.  However,  post-bid explanations may not be accepted
   to make a non-responsive bid  responsive.  BMSI, Inc.,  B-237402,
   89-2 CPD   418, at 2 (Nov. 2, 1989).  
 
                                Decision
 
        The protest is DENIED.
 
 
 
                                           _________________________
                                           ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                           Board Judge
 
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________________               _________________________
   JOSEPH A. VERGILIO                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                             Board Judge