______________________________ 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