BNUMBER:  B-271943
DATE:  August 14, 1996
TITLE:  Mike Johnson, Inc.

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

Matter of:Mike Johnson, Inc.

File:     B-271943

Date:August 14, 1996

Joel C. McCormick, Esq., McCormick, Dunn & Black, for the protester.
Capt. Timothy Domek and Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Low bid that acknowledged all amendments, but was submitted on the 
original bid schedule calling for a lump-sum bid, instead of on the 
revised bid schedule added by an amendment to the invitation for bids 
(IFB), which broke up the contract work into three line items for 
which prices were requested, is responsive, where the revised bid 
schedule did not add any additional work beyond that encompassed in 
the original bid schedule, such that the lump-sum bid on the initial 
IFB bid schedule obligated the bidder to meet all of the amended IFB's 
requirements at the lowest price.

DECISION

Mike M. Johnson, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Federal 
Research, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 45613-96-B-0010, 
issued by the Department of the Air Force, Fairchild Air Force Base, 
Washington, for the demolition of building 2150.  Johnson contends 
that Federal's bid was nonresponsive for failing to complete the 
revised bidding schedule.

We deny the protest.

The initial IFB included requirements for testing for contaminated 
soil, heavy metals, petroleum, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB); 
the removal of hazardous materials; and the replacement of 
contaminated soil with uncontaminated soil.  The initial IFB schedule 
called for a single lump-sum bid.

Amendment No. 0002 made various changes to the scope of work and 
incorporated a revised bidding schedule that separated the existing 
requirements under the statement of work into three separate line 
items.  The first line item called for a lump-sum price for all work 
specified, except that work covered by the other two line items.  The 
second line item called for a unit price and an extended "not to 
exceed" price to excavate, test, transport, treat, dispose and replace 
"not to exceed" 50 cubic yards of contaminated soil.  The third line 
item called for a unit price and a "not to exceed" total price to test 
"not to exceed" 20 samples of heavy metals, petroleum, and PCBs.[1]  
The total bid was the "not to exceed" total of the total prices for 
the three line items.

Federal submitted the low bid of $449,000.  Although Federal 
acknowledged all amendments, the bid was submitted on the original 
bidding schedule.  Johnson's bid was next low at $524,545.91; it 
acknowledged the amendments and utilized the revised bid schedule.  
The agency found Federal's bid responsive, waived Federal's failure to 
use the proper bid schedule as a minor informality, and permitted 
Federal to complete a revised bid schedule with unit prices for the 
second and third line items for the same total bid price.  

Johnson protests that Federal's bid is nonresponsive because it was 
not submitted on the revised bidding schedule and therefore called 
into question Federal's obligation to meet the IFB's requirements with 
regard to the second and third line items for which unit prices were 
requested.

A bid is responsive as submitted when it offers to perform without 
exception the exact thing called for in the solicitation and 
acceptance of the bid will bind the contractor to perform in 
accordance with all the IFB's material terms and conditions.  Inland 
Serv. Corp., B-249590, Dec. 7, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  394.  In certain 
circumstances, bids have been properly rejected where they were 
submitted on the original IFB schedule instead of an amended bid 
schedule, even where the bids have expressly acknowledged amendments 
containing the revised schedules.  See e.g., Cooper Sportswear Mfg. 
Co., Inc., B-238998.5, Sept. 18, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  225; Technical 
Support Servs., Inc., B-227328.2, Oct. 2, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  322.  In 
those cases, the amended bid schedule specifically listed additional 
material work that was not included in the original IFB and bid 
schedule, and the bids were nonresponsive because it was unclear 
whether the bidders bound themselves to perform the additional work.  
Id.

Here, the amended bid schedule did not add new work beyond that 
required in the initial bid schedule and Federal's bid acknowledged 
all amendments.  The only change made by the revised bid schedule was 
to specify a maximum, "not to exceed" amount for the work that the 
contractor was obligated to perform under the second and third line 
items, whereas the original schedule had no such limits.  There is no 
doubt that Federal's lump-sum bid obligated it to perform all of the 
contract requirements, inasmuch as the work encompassed by each of the 
itemized line items on the amended schedule was already required by 
the original bidding schedule.   See Inland Serv. Corp., supra.  
Federal's bid simply reflected that firm's agreement to perform the 
entire contract work for a single, lump-sum price, which was the 
obligation required by the IFB.  See Seaward Corp., B-237107.2, June 
13, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  552.  Since there is no doubt that Federal's bid 
would be low in all  circumstances and that it was obligated to 
satisfy all contract requirements, the Air Force properly determined 
that Federal's failure to use the revised bidding schedule was a 
waivable minor informality and that Federal's bid was responsive.  See 
Inland Serv. Corp., supra.

Because Federal's failure to use the amended bid schedule was a minor 
informality and completion of the amended schedule was to the 
advantage of the government, the agency could permit Federal to 
complete the amended schedule, including unit prices for the second 
and third line items, after bid opening.  Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  14.405.  While Johnson argues that the unit prices 
subsequently furnished on the amended bid schedule were unreasonably 
low as compared to Johnson's unit prices for the same line items, this 
provides no basis to challenge this submittal because there is no 
allegation or suggestion that Federal's low bid contained overstated 
prices for the other line item.  See Advanced Modular Space, Inc., 
B-265860, Oct. 6, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  168.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
 
1. The bid schedule was itemized at the request of bidders to clarify 
that the government's requirements--for soil removal and testings as 
set forth in the IFB--would not exceed specified amounts.