BNUMBER:  B-278598 
DATE:  February 18, 1998
TITLE: T & S Maintenance Services, B-278598, February 18, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:T & S Maintenance Services

File:     B-278598

Date:February 18, 1998

Tommie W. McKoy for the protester.
James R. Barfield, for Barfield's Maintenance Service, an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson and Capt. John C. Lavorato, Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected as nonresponsive a low bid that failed to 
acknowledge a material solicitation amendment which added a 
requirement that the contractor routinely perform certain maintenance 
work that had been the government's responsibility under the original 
solicitation.

DECISION

T & S Maintenance Services protests the rejection of its low bid and 
the award of a contract to Barfield's Maintenance Service under 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAKF40-97-B-0016, issued by the United 
States Department of the Army for the operation and maintenance of a 
Classified Material Destruction Facility (CMDF) at Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina.  T & S's bid was rejected as nonresponsive because it did 
not acknowledge amendment No. 0001.  T & S contends that the amendment 
was not material and that its failure to acknowledge the amendment 
should be waived as a minor informality.  

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued August 15, 1997, contemplated the award of a 
firm, fixed-price contract for 1 year with four 1-year options for the 
operation and maintenance of the CMDF.  Among other things, paragraph 
C.3.2.6 of the original solicitation, entitled "Grounds Maintenance," 
provided that:  "Maintenance of the grounds area is the responsibility 
of the Government unless effected by negligence of the Contractor 
whereupon it becomes the sole responsibility of the Contractor."  
 
On September 3, the agency issued amendment No. 0001, responding to 
five questions concerning the solicitation requirements.  As is 
relevant here, one of the questions was:  "Is the contractor 
responsible for area maintenance around the facility, i.e., mowing of 
grass and snow removal.  If so, will a lawn mower be provided as GFE 
[Government Furnished Equipment]?"

The agency responded in amendment No. 0001 by stating:  "Yes the 
contractor will be responsible for maintenance of the area.  The 
government will provide the necessary tools to perform these tasks.  
Incorporate this response as a part of Section C-3, Government 
Furnished Property and Services."

Eleven bids were received by the bid opening date.  When asked to 
verify its bid, the apparent low bidder withdrew, whereupon T & S's 
total bid of $210,000 became low and Barfield's $213,216 bid became 
second low.  However, because T & S's bid failed to acknowledge 
amendment No. 0001, which the Army determined was material, the Army 
rejected the bid as nonresponsive.  Award was made to Barfield's on 
October 20, and this protest followed, in which T & S asserts that 
amendment No. 0001 only clarified requirements that were already 
contained in the IFB and did not affect the legal obligations of the 
contracting parties or the price, quality, or quantity of the services 
being procured.   

A bidder's failure to acknowledge a material amendment to an IFB 
renders the
bid nonresponsive since, absent such an acknowledgment, the 
government's 
acceptance of the bid would not legally obligate the bidder to meet 
the government's needs as identified in the amendment.  G. R. 
Sponaugle & Sons, Inc., B-257784, Nov. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  178 at 2.  
On the other hand, a bidder's failure to acknowledge an amendment that 
is not material is waivable as a minor informality.  Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.405; DeRalco, Inc., 
68 Comp. Gen. 349, 351 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  327 at 3.  An amendment is 
material where it would have more than a negligible effect on price, 
quantity, quality, or delivery,  FAR  sec.  14.405(d)(2); Star Brite 
Constr. Co., Inc., B-238428, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  373 at 2, or, 
even if it has only a trivial price impact, if it changes the legal 
relationship between the parties, such as by increasing or decreasing 
the contractor's obligation in a material manner.  Jenness Woodkuts, A 
Joint Venture, B-257345, Sept. 22, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  112 at 2.

Here, the solicitation as originally issued did not require the 
contractor to perform routine maintenance of the area around the 
facility unless the need for the maintenance arose from the 
contractor's negligence.  Amendment No. 0001 shifted the 
responsibility for maintaining this area from the government to the 
contractor, thereby imposing maintenance requirements on the 
contractor which were not envisioned by the original solicitation.  
The agency estimated that the cost impact of this added contractor 
maintenance responsibility would be approximately $6,500 over the life 
of the contract, an amount which the protester does not dispute.  
Considering the value of this contract, this amount is clearly more 
than negligible, particularly in view of the fact that it is greater 
than the price difference between the bids of T & S and Barfield's.  
Further, these amended maintenance requirements constitute additional 
material obligations imposed on the contractor.  Accordingly, the 
amendment at issue is material[1]; T & S's failure to acknowledge the 
amendment could not be waived as a minor informality; and the agency 
properly rejected the protester's bid as nonresponsive.   

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency also determined that other changes included in amendment 
No. 0001 relating to the contractor's responsibility to train its 
employees to operate facility equipment were material.  We need not 
address these changes, since the change to the maintenance 
requirements was, by itself, material.