THEREIN.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT A BIDDER MAY COMMIT ITSELF TO

SUCH [AFFIRMATIVE ACTION] REQUIREMENTS IN A MANNER OTHER THAN THAT
SPECIFIED IN THE SOLICITATION. 51 COMP.GEN. 329 (1971); B-176260, AUGUST 2, 1972; B-
177846, MARCH 27, 1973.

ALTHOUGH COMPLIANCE WITH AFFIRM ACTION REQUIRMENT IS MATERIAL, FEDERAL

PRCUREMENT DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT

A BIDDER COULD COMMIT ITSELF TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS IN A MANNER

OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE IFB SO LONG AS ‘OTHER EVIDENCE‘ IN THE SUBMITTED
BID INDICATED THE BIDDER'S CLEAR INTENT TO BE BOUND TO THE REQUIREMENTS. MATTER
OF BARTLEY, INCORPORATED, 53 COMP. GEN. 451 (1974) AND CASES CITED THEREIN.

REDLEX STATEMENT IN RFP AT rr-04, ART C THAT IT HAS “PARTNERED WITH MORGNER
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT THAT MAINTAINS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGARM
CONSISTENT WITH . . .