based on the view that in the circumstances of the case the basic duty assignment of the member concerned remained at the old duty station until the unit actually moved.

In view of such decisions the Under Secretary asks whether the effective date of the permanent change of station for the members of Airborne Early Warning Squadron Four and in similar cases for travel allowance purposes is (1) the date on which each member is first required to commence travel to the new duty station even though such date is subsequent to the date of the announced change but prior to the specified effective date of the change, or (2) the date on which the movement of the entire unit is completed or the date on which some designated portion of the unit such as the command of the unit moves.

The pertinent statute, 37 U.S.C. 404, provides for payment, under regulations of the Secretaries concerned, of travel and transportation allowances to members of the uniformed services only when away from their designated posts of duty. A member's designated post of duty is the place where his basic duty assignment is for performance and the place to which he must proceed or return upon the completion of temporary duty assignments or other absences from his normal duties and, except as may be otherwise authorized by statute, administrative regulations issued under the cited statutory provision must be applied within that limitation. 38 Comp. Gen. 565. See, also, 41 Comp. Gen. 726.

Hence, while such factors as the location of the military unit to which a member is attached, or an administrative announcement of the effective date of change of location of such unit may be suggestive of the location of his designated post of duty, a determination as to his status during a given period in that respect must depend upon the actual location of his basic duty assignment even though possibly not corresponding at that time with the location of his assigned unit. Consequently, where change of station is involved, a member's right to travel allowance is for determination on the basis of when the change in the place of his basic duty assignment actually takes place. In the cases outlined above, the records indicated that the entire complements of the units moved at the same time and, therefore, we said that the station change for all members was effective when the units moved. In the case of a movement of an organizational urit extending over a period of several weeks or months, however, it is apparent that the place of the basic duty assignments of the various members of the unit will not change simultaneously. Consequently, a designated effective date for the unit's station change based upon the movement of a portion of the unit may no more legally serve as a basis for determining travel allowance entitlements than may the effective date

of such change as announced by the Chief of Naval Operations. It is our view, therefore, that the effective date of a permanent change of station of a member assigned to a shore-based mobile unit for travel and transportation allowances is the date following the announcement of the change on which the member is required to commence travel to the new station for the purpose of thereafter remaining at and performing his normal duties at the new station. It is immaterial whether this travel is performed before or after the announced effective date of the change. The Under Secretary's questions are answered accordingly and future audit and claims settlement action by this Office will be based on such conclusion.

For the reasons set out above, the audit action taken on the payments of per diem to members of the squadron for duty performed at Jacksonville was proper. In view, however, of the apparent misunderstanding as to the basis for the conclusion reached in the decision of April 15, 1959, and of the import of the unit movement language used in the decisions of January 10 and February 16, 1961, the notices of exception taken to such payments will be removed.

[B-151807]

Contracts Specifications-Descriptive Data—Administrative Determination

The question of whether data and information required to be submitted by bidders for Government contracts meets the data furnishing requirements in the invitation is a factual one primarily for determination by the procuring agency and when a good-faith explanation is given by the procuring agency indicating that the information meets the invitation requirements a contrary conclusion will not be made.

Bidders Qualifications-Time for Submission of Evidence

▲ requirement in an invitation that the bidder furnish with his bid a list of equipment to be used in performing the contract which information does not limit or reduce his obligation to perform the contract is information which goes to the responsibility of the bidder rather than to the responsiveness of the bid and, therefore, such information may be submitted at any time before a determination as to that factor is made, even though the invitation requires that the equipment data be submitted with the bid and specifies that failure to comply will result in rejection of the bid.

Bidders Qualifications-Time for Submission of Evidence

The rule that data which goes to the responsibility of the bidder to perform rather than to the responsiveness of the bid may be submitted at any time before a determination of responsibility is made applies with even greater weight to data to be furnished by the lowest bidder after opening since only in unusual circumstances, if at all, could such data affect the responsiveness of the bid. Contracts Specifications-Changes, Revisions, Etc.-Obsolete, Etc., Propriety

Where evidence indicates that the low bidder submitted his bid on the basis of a particular specification designated by number in the invitation rather than

on a specification identified by another number which had superseded the one in the invitation and that the contracting agency had continued to use the old specification under current contracts, the old specification is considered to be the one on which bidders were bidding and on which the contracting agency was soliciting bids.

Contracts Duration-Option To Extend

Under a service contract containing an option permitting an extention for an additional month beyond the service year, an agreement with the contractor, who is the protesting second low bidder under a new invitation, to continue to furnish services on a day-to-day basis until the protest is resolved does not constitute the exercise of the option but is merely a procedure agreeable to both parties to furnish the services pending a final determination of the protest. To Burton, Heffelfinger, McCarthy & Kendrick, July 24, 1963:

We refer to your letter of June 18, 1963, and subsequent correspondence protesting on behalf of Fuel Service of Enterprise, Inc., against the proposed award of a contract to the low bidder under invitation for bids No. 01-044-63-42 issued by the Purchasing and Contracting Office, Fort Rucker, Alabama, for refueling and defueling of aircraft at Fort Rucker and vicinity for fiscal year 1964.

Bids were opened on May 29, 1963. The low bid was found to be that submitted by the Parker Oil Company at $0.0088 per gallon or a total annual price, based on the estimated monthly quantity of 1,800,000 gallons, of $190,080. The second low bidder, Fuel Service of Enterprise, Inc., the current contractor, offered to perform at $0.0132 per gallon, for a total annual price, based on the estimated quantity, of $285,120. The contracting officer has proposed to make award to the low bidder who, like the current contractor, has successfully performed the same service in prior years. Award has been held up pending resolution of the protest by our Office. Services are being provided in the interim, by mutual agreement, on a dayto-day basis, by the incumbent contractor. The contractor's contention that the extension should have been for a fixed period is considered later.

The invitation at Section II, paragraph A, requires the submission of certain data with each bid, including:

1. A list of equipment (refuelers, defuelers and oilers) to be used to satisfy tank truck capacity requirements of paragraph entitled, "SERVICES."

Paragraph B of the same section provides for the submission of information after opening including the following:

DATA TO BE SUBMITTED AFTER BID OPENING:

1. Within three (3) days after date of bid opening, the lowest bidder shall submit a statement of his plan to make available the equipment to be used under the contract. If any or all of such equipment is owned by the bidder, the bidder shall so state. If any or all of such equipment is to be purchased, leased or acquired by or through other means, the bidder shall so state and support such statement with certified true copies of the applicable agreements. In addition there shall accompany the aforementioned plan, a list showing (1) the location or place of manufacture of the equipment and (ii) the modifications

that are necessary to any existing equipment to meet technical requirements set forth in the General Delivery Provisions.

The section at paragraph C also states:

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Submission of the required data as prescribed herein is of UTMOST importance to the Government in making timely evaluation of bids. Thus, failure to make timely submission of any of the required data may result in a determination that a bid is unresponsive to the Invitation for Bids or that the bidder is not a responsible source of supply.

You contend, first, that the low bid should be rejected because the list of equipment submitted with the bid as required by Section II, paragraph A, is not adequate to meet the requirements imposed by the schedule. The list included with the low bid enumerates 23 items of equipment in possession of the bidder and states further:

Parker Oil Company realizes this may not be sufficient equipment to ensure a maximum thirty (30) minute turn-around time. We have made the necessary arrangements for more equipment if needed upon award of this Contract.

With respect to the adequacy of the listed items of equipment to meet the sustained delivery rate for each kind of fuel used as provided at Section I, paragraph 1, of the invitation, you state:

The Contractor, Fuel Service of Enterprise, Inc., has prepared and is willing to exhibit a scale map covering the Fort Rucker area proper, as well as subsidiary outlying bases, all of which are required to be serviced under the contract in question. It is the contention of the Contractor that the present number of trucks owned by the apparent low bidder would be wholly inadequate to accomplish this mission. As was pointed out in earlier correspondence, under the increased requirements of the Contract of 1962-63, the Contracting Officer stated in the IFB that, "Contractor will need approximately 21 refueling trucks ***". This contract, however, with its increased requirements, called for the pumping of 700,000 gallons whereas in the 1963-64 IFB, pumping of 1,800,000 is required but the IFB omits any reference to the number of trucks required. However, the Contractor has computed what would seem to be reasonable as to the number of trucks which would be required. The Comptroller General's attention is respectfully referred to page 7 of the IFB in which there are listed the Air Fields to be serviced, the hours of operation, the estimated frequency of service and the grades of fuel to be pumped. Knowing the types of aircraft to be serviced at the various fields, the Contractor is aware that in the case of Cairns, Hanchey, Longstreet and TAC I, tricresyl phosphate (TCP) is also used. The Contractor has computed the minimum number of trucks which would be required to simultaneously service all the fields and the aircraft involved. While it is recognized that it possibly would be rare that all aircraft at all of the stated number of fields would require servicing at any one time, nonetheless the contract requires that a contractor be prepared so to do if called upon. From this, the Contractor has determined that a minimum number of 28 fueling trucks would be required to accomplish the mission as set forth in the IFB.

With respect to the same matter, the report furnished by the Department of the Army includes findings by the contracting officer in part as follows:

(1) Fuel Service's letter of 26 June 1963, supplementing its original protest alleges that Parker Oil is non-responsive by reason of having made a conditional bid prohibited by amendment 2. Parker Oil submitted with its bid, data in letter format on equipment and personnel available. Included in this letter as paragraph 5, Page 1 was a statement "Parker Oil Company realizes that

this may not be sufficient equipment to insure a maximum thirty (30) minute turn-around time. We have made the necessary arrangements for more equipment if needed upon award of this contract". In the sense of the IFB, as amended, this statement does not make Parker Oil's bid conditioned or nonresponsive.

(2) The IFB requires the contractor to have sufficient refueler equipment capable of meeting a specified delivery rate. Past experience in handling this type of contract might well be of value in preparing a bid on this type of procurement action. However, experience developed at other military installations, Army, Navy and Air Force would not be directly comparable to requirements at Fort Rucker because of differences in mission, aircraft types, accessibility, fuel capacity and consumption. The IFB furnishes information necessary to evaluate the proposed contract's requirements in terms of approximate numbers and types of aircraft; their locations; estimated hours and types of fuel required at each location; and additional airfields at which emergency and non-scheduled fuel requirements may be expressed. Both Parker Oil Company and Fuel Service, Incorporated, have had similar contracts at Fort Rucker in previous years, Fuel Service, Inc., for the past year, Parker Oil Company for the three previous fiscal years.

(3) The IFB for the proposed FY 64 contract did not specify numbers of vehicles and equipment to be furnished as was done in past years. It does require sufficient equipment to meet refueler requirements, leaving quantities to the contractor's managerial and technical competence. Comparison of refueling services required at Fort Rucker to guides set forth for an Army aviation company in the Department of the Army Field Manual, 101-10, is not valid. FM 101-10 is designed for logistics planning in a combat theater of operations under a situation of highly mobile and widely dispersed operations, whereas Fort Rucker is a permanent installation with a training mission operating under peacetime conditions. At Fort Rucker storage tanks are easily accessible permiting several turn-arounds of each refueler truck during a single day's operation. I consider the nineteen (19) refueling vehicles, together with the capability to acquire more if needed as proposed by Parker Oil, sufficient to satisfactorily perform the requirements of this contract.

5. Not required in the IFB but certainly to be considered in evaluating performance capability and flexibility is additional equipment mounted in several of Parker Oil Company's vehicles. Thirteen (13) of his nineteen (19) refueler trucks have radios mounted in them permitting dispatch on call by radio rather than return to a central control point for routing and re-routing. Additionally, six of Parker Oil's trucks are equipped with booms, four with single booms and two with twin booms, making loading more expeditious than a manual reel-out and reel-in of hoses process.

Based on the foregoing, the contracting officer has concluded that the Parker Oil Company has sufficient equipment and the ability to acquire more as necessary to meet the contract requirement.

It has long been recognized that the factual determination as to whether that which is offered by the bidder conforms to the specification is to be decided primarily by the contracting agency. 17 Comp. Gen. 554, 557. While the rule has reference to the end product we see no reason why it is not also for application with respect to data submitted pursuant to the terms of the invitation. Therefore, and in view of the apparent bona fides of the Department's explanation we would not be disposed to conclude that the list of equipment furnished by the low bidder does not meet the data furnishing requirements of the invitation.

However, even assuming that the equipment listed in fact did not meet the data furnishing requirement of the invitation, we do not believe that if awarded the contract the Parker Company's obligation