BNUMBER:  B-272612
DATE:  October 23, 1996
TITLE:  Knightsbridge Construction Corp.

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

Matter of:Knightsbridge Construction Corp.

File:     B-272612

Date:October 23, 1996

Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for the protester.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of the Army, 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 only one amendment was issued to a solicitation, a bidder's use 
of an "X" instead of the number and issuance date of that amendment in 
completing the block provided for the acknowledgment of amendments on 
Standard Form 1442 does not render the bid nonresponsive under 
circumstances where the "X" represents the bidder's clear intent to be 
bound to the amendment.

DECISION

Knightsbridge Construction Corp., the second low bidder, protests the 
proposed award to Castle Electromechanical Inc. under invitation for 
bids (IFB) No. DAHA30-96-B-0005, issued by the United States Property 
and Fiscal Office-New York, to obtain fire suppression and detection 
systems for a New York Air National Guard unit.  Knightsbridge 
contends that Castle's bid should have been rejected because the 
bidder failed to acknowledge the one amendment to the IFB.

We deny the protest.

Bidders were required by the IFB to acknowledge all IFB amendments in 
block 19 of Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award.  In 
completing block 19, a bidder was to insert in the top row of boxes in 
the block the number of each amendment and in the lower row of boxes 
the issuance date of each amendment.  The name of the person 
authorized to sign the bid, that person's signature, and the date the 
bid was submitted were to be inserted in blocks 20(A), (B), and (C), 
respectively.  These blocks were located directly below block 19.  
According to the Army, due to a paper jam when printing this form, 
Castle received a page containing only the right half of the form.  As 
submitted, the page contained only the right half of block 19 and the 
entire blocks 20(B) and (C).  Castle, in completing this portion of 
the page, did not list the number and issuance date of amendment No. 
l; rather, it placed an "X" in the first box above the signature block 
(block 20(B)) and an "X" in the first box above the offer date block 
(block 20(C)).  Blocks 20B and 20C contained the bidder's signature 
and bid offer date.  The agency concluded that because only one 
amendment was issued, Castle's insertion of the "X" in the block for 
acknowledgment of amendments and its bidding official's signature was 
sufficient to show acknowledgment of the amendment.  We agree.

Although bidders were called upon to acknowledge amendments by 
inserting the amendment number on the top line and its date on the 
bottom line of block 19, we have recognized that bidders can 
effectively acknowledge amendments in ways other than that envisioned 
by the IFB.  See, e.g., S&D Mechanical Contractors, B-209535, Apr. 15, 
1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  411; Nuclear Research Corp.; Ridgeway Elecs., Inc., 
B-200793; B-200793.2, June 2, 1981, 81-1 CPD  para.  437; B. R. Abbot 
Constr. Co.,
B-186263, May 26, 1976, 76-1 CPD  para.  344. The operative concern simply 
is whether a bid can reasonably be read as taking exception to any 
material government requirements, including those imposed by IFB 
amendments.  Nuclear Research Corp.; Ridgeway Elecs., Inc., supra.  

Here, we think there can be no reasonable doubt concerning Castle's 
commitment to the IFB as amended.  As stated above, the left side of 
block 19, containing the "Amendment No." and "Date" captions for the 
two rows of boxes in which this information was to be inserted, was 
missing from Castle's copy the IFB.  While Castle could have entered 
the amendment number and date in the rows of boxes making up the right 
side of block 19, in these circumstances we perceive no reasonable 
meaning, and the protester has postulated none, for the "X's" that the 
awardee did insert in the boxes in the acknowledgment of amendments 
block other than the awardee's acknowledgment of the single amendment 
that was issued.  Accordingly, we see no basis for objecting to the 
proposed award to Castle.

The protest is denied.
     
Comptroller General
of the United States