BNUMBER:  B-262249
DATE:  December 11, 1995
TITLE:  Holiday Inn-Laurel, Maryland

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Holiday Inn-Laurel, Maryland

File:     B-262249

Date:     December 11, 1995

Mark R. Eskew for the protester.
Aimee Arroyo-Madison for Howard Johnson Lodge, Baltimore, Maryland, an 
interested party.
John M. Kinsey, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where the provisions in a solicitation amendment either had no affect 
on the terms of the solicitation or made the original terms less 
onerous, and thus less costly, the failure by a bidder to acknowledge 
receipt of the amendment did not render its bid nonresponsive, and the 
failure was properly waived.

DECISION

Holiday Inn-Laurel, Maryland protests the award of a contract to 
Howard Johnson Lodge, Baltimore, Maryland under invitation for bids 
(IFB) No. DTCG40-95-B-30058, issued by the United States Coast Guard 
to obtain lodging for crews working at the United States Coast Guard 
Yard, Baltimore, Maryland.  Holiday Inn contends that since Howard 
Johnson did not acknowledge amendment No. 0001, its bid was 
nonresponsive and should have been rejected.

We deny the protest.

The IFB requested the submission of a unit price for both double- and 
single-occupancy rooms over 1-year base and 1-year option periods.  
The agency's requirements for the 12-month base year period were 
estimated to be 400 rooms.  The proposed lodging facility had to be 
within a 17-mile radius of the Yard.  Subsequent to the IFB's 
issuance, Holiday Inn asked for information relating to the large 
difference between the estimated needs for this contract and the 
previous contract, if subcontractors could be used to perform the 
contract, and what the typical schedule was for utilization of the 
hotel facility by the crews, i.e., the estimated evening arrival and 
morning departure times and the number of days per week rooms would be 
used.  These questions were answered in amendment No. 0001.  The 
amendment stated that the estimated room usage depended on the 
"estimated projected repair availabilities" and "estimated scheduled 
project work" and thus varied from year to year.  The amendment 
further stated that the prime contractor could subcontract if it 
desired, but it alone would be held accountable for contract 
performance.  Further, the amendment stated that arrival and departure 
times would be governed by hotel check-in and check-out times and that 
the number of days rooms would be used during a 1-week period depended 
upon the work that the crews would be doing.  Bids were opened on June 
15.  Award was made to Howard Johnson.

Holiday Inn contends that Howard Johnson's bid should have been 
rejected as nonresponsive because the awardee failed to acknowledge 
receipt of the amendment which the protester asserts contained 
information critical to the preparation of bids.   

A bidder's failure to acknowledge a solicitation amendment may be 
waived as a minor informality unless the amendment is material and 
acknowledgment is required so as to obligate the bidder to comply with 
the terms of the amendment.  Hospitality Inn--Downtown, B-248750.3, 
Oct. 28, 1992, 92-2 CPD  291.  An amendment is material when it has 
more than a trivial impact on price, quantity, quality, or delivery of 
the item being procured or would have an impact on the relative 
standing of the bidders.  Coopers Constr., Inc., B-260364; B-260364.2, 
May 30, 1995, 95-1 CPD  268.  No precise rule exists to determine 
whether an amendment is material--such a determination will be based 
on the facts of each case.  Id.

We conclude that the amendment was not material and that the agency 
properly waived Howard Johnson's failure to acknowledge receipt of the 
amendment.  In this regard, the amendment made no changes in the basic 
requirement for lodging services of 400 rooms for the 12-month base 
year period.   In response to Holiday Inn's request for information, 
the agency confirmed in the amendment that subcontracting was 
permitted.  We do not think this confirmation was material since the 
IFB did not prohibit subcontracting.  Also, the amendment stated that 
length of occupancy would vary based on the projects at the Yard; this 
information, in our view, was not material since the IFB contained 
estimates of lodging services and stated that a bidder would not be 
obligated to accept any order in excess of 60 rooms or "three (3) 
months lodging."  Finally, regarding arrival/departure times, the 
amendment stated that the awardee's regular check-in and check-out 
times would govern.  Again, we view this statement as merely providing 
information which confirmed what bidders already should have assumed 
since the IFB did not solicit anything other than routine lodging 
services.  Coopers Constr., Inc., supra. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States