BNUMBER:  B-280448             
DATE:  September 30, 1998
TITLE: Riverwood of Mississippi, Inc., B-280448, September 30, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Riverwood of Mississippi, Inc.

File:B-280448            
        
Date:September 30, 1998

Robert S. Murphree, Esq., for the protester.  
Laurie Ristino, Esq., Forest Service, for the agency. 
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that bid for timber sale should have been rejected as 
nonresponsive for failure to include Certificate of Small Business 
Status, which contained performance requirements, is denied where bid 
form obligated bidder to meet identical performance requirements.

DECISION

Riverwood of Mississippi, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Rex, Inc. under an advertisement for a "Compartment 2 Timber Sale," 
issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, as a small 
business set-aside for timber located in the Delta National Forest.  
Riverwood asserts that the award to Rex was improper because its bid 
did not include a completed Certificate of Small Business Status.

We deny the protest.

The bid instructions provided that bidders had to complete, and submit 
with their bids, a Certificate of Small Business Status in order to be 
eligible for award as a small business.  The certificate contained the 
definition of a small business for purposes of the sale, as well as 
performance requirements regarding the resale and use of the timber.  
Rex's high bid was accepted for award despite its failure to include 
the certificate.  Riverwood maintains that Rex's bid instead should 
have been rejected as nonresponsive, and award made to Riverwood as 
the only eligible small business bidder.        

Responsiveness concerns whether a bid constitutes an offer to perform, 
without exception, the exact thing called for in the solicitation.  
Unless something on the face of the bid reduces or modifies the 
bidder's obligation to perform in accordance with the terms of the 
solicitation, the bid is responsive.  The required commitment to the 
terms of the solicitation need not be made in the exact manner 
specified; all that is necessary is that the bid, in some fashion, 
commit the bidder to the solicitation's material requirements.  
Cal-Tex Lumber Co., Inc., B-277705, Sept. 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  87 at 
3.  In this regard, we have recognized that where signing a bid form 
binds the bidder to all material terms of a required small business 
status certification, a requirement for a separate commitment to the 
same terms in the form of an executed certificate is redundant and of 
no legal consequence;  therefore, in such circumstances, the absence 
of an executed certificate does not render the bid nonresponsive or 
otherwise provide a basis for rejecting it.[1]  Id.

By signing its bid, Rex specifically bound itself to the terms of the 
sample contract referenced in the bid form.  Bid Form at 3.  That 
contract, at clause CT6.9, contains performance requirements identical 
to those set forth in the certificate.  Accordingly, the requirement 
for submitting the certificate with the bid was redundant, and Rex's 
failure to submit an executed certificate was of no legal 
consequence.[2]  Cal-Tex Lumber Co., Inc., supra, at 3.
  
Riverwood maintains that the sample contract terms are not a 
substitute for the certificate here since, according to the timber 
sale prospectus, clause CT6.9 will be included in the sample contract 
only if the bidder on this sale certifies as a small business by 
signing the certificate.  Prospectus at 9.  Riverwood reasons that, 
since Rex did not sign the certificate, it did not agree to clause 
CT6.9.  We disagree.  The prospectus is a document that provides 
potential bidders who choose to obtain it with more information and 
details regarding the timber sale than the advertisement announcing 
the timber sale provides.  Its purpose is to allow potential bidders 
to make an informed decision as to whether to participate in the 
timber sale.  The prospectus is not a part of the contract, however, 
and does not purport to set forth contract terms.  In fact, the 
prospectus specifically provides that when it contradicts the 
contract, the contract governs.  Prospectus at 2.  In contrast, the 
bid form expressly binds the bidder to the terms of the bid form and 
the sample contract as material parts of its offer.  Bid Form at 3.  
This being the case, and as neither the bid form nor the sample 
contract provides any circumstances under which clause CT6.9 will be 
removed from the sample contract, Rex is bound by the performance 
requirements contained in the sample contract.  It follows that the 
agency properly accepted Rex's bid.  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Small business status itself may be established after bid opening, 
Jimmy's Appliance, B-205611, June 7, 1982, 82-1 CPD  para.  542 at 4; thus, 
the only question here is the effect of the absence of the certificate 
on the performance requirements.

2. In supplemental comments Riverwood submitted in response to the 
agency report, Riverwood asserts that it learned that Rex will not 
comply with the applicable performance requirements.  Whether Rex 
complies with the performance requirements is a matter of contract 
administration, which is not subject to review by our Office.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a) (1998).