BNUMBER:  B-274319
DATE:  November 6, 1996
TITLE:  Consolidated Contracting & Engineering

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

Matter of:Consolidated Contracting & Engineering

File:     B-274319

Date:November 6, 1996

Raymond H. Royce, Esq., Royce & Brain, for the protester.
Richard C. Harding, Esq., and Marian Sullivan, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency acted reasonably in waiving a bidder's failure to 
acknowledge an amendment that had no material effect on bidder's 
obligations.

2.  A bidder's failure to initial changes in a bid is a matter of form 
that may be considered an informality and waived if the bid leaves no 
doubt as to the intended price.  This rule also applies where changes 
in the bid are initialed by someone other than the person who signed 
the bid.

DECISION

Consolidated Contracting & Engineering protests the award of a 
requirements contract to Marenco, Inc. to replace fire alarm systems 
at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, under invitation for bids (IFB) 
No. F6550l-96-B-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force.  
Consolidated asserts that Marenco's low bid should have been rejected 
as nonresponsive because Marenco failed to acknowledge a material 
amendment to the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

The IFB was issued on May 23, 1996, and was amended six times prior to 
bid opening.  The IFB, as originally issued, required a performance 
bond with a penal amount of 100 percent of the contract price, but not 
to exceed $1 million. Amendment No. 0002, among other things, reduced 
the bond requirement to 
20 percent of the bid price, but did not include a revised bid 
schedule.   Amendment No. 0007 (in actuality the sixth and final 
amendment) replaced two pages of the bid schedule, the only effect of 
which was to reflect that amendment 
No. 0002 had lowered the bond requirement from 100 percent/$1 million 
to 
20 percent of the bid price.

Marenco's bid of $711,000 for the base period was the lowest of the 
five bids received by bid opening.  Consolidated's bid of $948,582 for 
the base period was second lowest.  Marenco acknowledged five of the 
six amendments, failing to acknowledge the sixth amendment that 
provided the revised bid schedule pages.  Marenco submitted its bid on 
the old bid schedule which differed only in that it contained a line 
item designating a $1 million performance bond.  Also, in the bid 
schedule submitted by Marenco, the "unit price" entered in item No. 
0001 (CLIN 1) was initially written, then crossed out.  Above the 
crossed out figure was written the figure ".00961" followed by the 
initials "SRS."  Since Marenco's price for CLIN 1 was substantially 
lower than that of the other bidders, the contracting officer 
requested verification of this line item on August 27.  Marenco 
verified the amount on August 29.  Subsequently, the contracting 
officer waived Marenco's failure to acknowledge the amendment as a 
minor informality.

Consolidated asserts that Marenco's failure to acknowledge amendment 
No. 0007 renders its bid nonresponsive.  Consolidated contends that 
the amendment concerned a specific line item that was utilized in 
computing the overall price for the bid and is therefore material.  
The protester also argues that Marenco's bid should be rejected 
because Marenco failed to initial the changes made in its bid 
schedule.  Lastly, the protester contends that Marenco's price for 
CLIN 1 reflects a mistake because it was substantially lower than the 
prices of the other bidders for the same item.

Generally, a bid that does not acknowledge a material amendment must 
be rejected because absent such an acknowledgment, the acceptance of 
the bid would not obligate the contractor to comply with the 
amendment's terms.  Gulf Elec. Constr. Co., Inc., 68 Comp. Gen. 719 
(1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  272.  However, an amendment is not material if it 
does not impose any legal obligations on the bidder different from 
those in the original solicitation; the failure to acknowledge an 
amendment that merely clarifies an existing requirement therefore may 
be waived.  See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.405(d)(2); 
Mechanical Resources, Inc., B-241403, Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  93.  
Failure to acknowledge an amendment may also be waived where the 
amendment results in less stringent obligations on the bidder since 
acceptance of a bid premised on the more stringent requirements in the 
original solicitation would not prejudice any other competitor.  Pro 
Alarm Co., Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 727 (1990), 90-2 CPD  para.  242.

Here, amendment No. 0007 made no change to any of the requirements 
under the solicitation.  It merely provided the revised bid schedule 
reflecting the performance bond requirement already implemented by 
amendment No. 0002, which was properly acknowledged by Marenco.  
Further, reduction of the bonding requirement from 100 percent of the 
bid price or $1 million to 20 percent of the bid price placed a less 
stringent requirement on the bidders.  Accordingly, there was no basis 
to reject Marenco's bid for failure to acknowledge the amendment.

As to the issue of Marenco's price change, in its comments to the 
agency report, the protester concedes that Marenco apparently did 
initial the changes in its bid schedule, but argues that the initials 
appearing on the changes do not appear to be the initials of the 
person who executed the bid.  

We have held that a bidder's failure to initial such changes is a 
matter of form that may be considered an informality and waived if the 
bid leaves no doubt as to the price intended.  R.R. Gregory Corp., 
B-217251, Apr. 19, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  449.  This rule also applies where 
changes in the bid are initiated but by someone other than the person 
who signed the bid.  Walsky Constr. Co., B-213158, Nov. 21, 1983, 83-2 
CPD  para.  603.  In such cases, where it is apparent that the changes were 
made before bids were opened, the bidder is responsible for the 
content of its bid and may be required to perform at the prices as 
submitted.  Walsky Constr. Co., supra.  There is no requirement for 
the government to prove either the identity or the authority of the 
person who actually made or initiated the change.

Here, the handwritten changes on Marenco's bid are clear, and there is 
no doubt as to Marenco's intended price.  In addition, there is 
nothing which indicates, and the protester does not allege, that the 
changes were made after bid opening.  Accordingly, the question of who 
initiated the changes provides no basis to challenge the propriety of 
the proposed award to Marenco.

Lastly, the protester maintains that Marenco made a mistake in its 
price for CLIN 1 because it was substantially lower than the prices of 
the other bidders.  As explained above, because of Marenco's low price 
for this item, the contracting officer requested verification; in 
response, Marenco verified its price for this item.  Our Office will 
not consider one bidder's claim that another bid may be mistaken since 
it is the responsibility of the contracting parties--the government 
and the low bidder--to assert rights and bring forth the necessary 
evidence to resolve mistake questions.  Reliable Trash Serv., Inc., 
B-258208, Dec. 20, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  252;
Riverport Indus., Inc., 64 Comp. Gen. 265 (1985), 85-1 CPD  para.  201.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States