BNUMBER:  B-281180.2 
DATE:  December 29, 1998
TITLE: R.F. Lusa & Sons Sheetmetal, Inc., B-281180.2, December 29,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:R.F. Lusa & Sons Sheetmetal, Inc.

File:     B-281180.2

Date:December 29, 1998

Leonard W. Childs, Jr., Esq., Childs & Lewis for the protester.
Capt. Steven H. Levin, Department of the Army, 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

Unsigned or uninitialed inscription on the outside envelope of the 
protester's bid purportedly modifying the bid price reflected on the 
protester's bid form is not an effective bid modification where the 
bid or modification is not otherwise accompanied by evidence of the 
bidder's intent to be bound by the modification.

DECISION

R.F. Lusa & Sons Sheetmetal, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
Brazos Roofing International of South Dakota, Inc. under invitation 
for bids (IFB) No. DAKF10-98-B-0066, issued by the Department of the 
Army for roofing repair work at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, 
Georgia.  Lusa contends that the Army improperly failed to consider a 
modification to its bid price written on the envelope containing its 
bid, where that modification would have made it the low bidder.

We deny the protest.

The Army received three bids by bid opening.  On the envelope 
containing Lusa's bid was the inscription "ENVELOPE DEDUCTION 10% off 
all Bid items."  This inscription was not signed or initialed.  
Without considering the envelope deduction, Lusa's bid was second low 
and Brazos's bid was low.  If the deduction is applied to the bid 
price on the standard form (SF) 1442 on which Lusa submitted its bid, 
Lusa's bid would be the lowest.   

The Army determined that it could not consider the envelope 
inscription as an effective modification to Lusa's bid because it 
lacked a signature and was not in the proper form.  Therefore, the 
Army made award to Brazos.

Lusa contends that the Army should have modified its bid in accordance 
with the modification on the envelope containing its bid.  Lusa 
asserts that the modification met the requirements of Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14.303(a), since it was in writing, 
submitted by a properly authorized agent of Lusa, and received in the 
designated office by the proper time.  Lusa argues that the 
solicitation did not prohibit this method of modifying a bid, and that 
this method has been employed by Lusa on other procurements.

FAR  sec.  14.303 provides in pertinent part that "[b]ids may be modified 
or withdrawn by any method authorized by the solicitation, if notice 
is received in the office designated in the solicitation not later 
than the exact time set for opening of bids."  Here, the IFB did not 
authorize unsigned or uninitialed bid modifications on bid envelopes.  
To the contrary, the IFB incorporated FAR  sec.  52.214-5, Submission of 
Bids, which required bid modifications to be submitted in sealed 
envelopes or packages, and FAR  sec.  52.214-18, Preparation of 
Bids--Construction, which requires that bids be manually signed and 
that the person signing a bid must initial each erasure or change 
appearing on any bid form.  

Such unsigned or uninitialed bid modifications on the outside of bid 
envelopes may not be accepted unless the bid or modification is 
otherwise accompanied by evidence of the bidder's intent to be bound 
by the modifications.  Barnes Elec. Co., Inc., B-228651, Oct. 2, 1987, 
87-2 CPD  para.  331 at 2-3; Government Contract Servs., Inc., B-226885, 
Aug. 27, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  204 at 2; cf. Qualicon Corp., B-237288, Feb. 
7, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  158 at 2-4 (bid modification written on outside 
bid envelope was acceptable where initialed by the signatory to the 
bid).  Just as in the case of a bid, a bid modification subject to the 
requirement that it be signed by the bidder or its properly authorized 
agent, or otherwise reflect clear evidence of the bidder's intent to 
be bound if a signature is lacking; otherwise the bidder may not be 
legally obligated to comply with the terms of the bid as modified, 
even if the government accepted the bid.  See Tilley Constructors & 
Eng'rs, Inc., B-251335.2, Apr. 2, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  289 at 3; FCC 
Constr., Inc., B-250304, Jan. 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  28 at 2.  

Thus, the Army properly did not consider the bid modification on the 
outside of Lusa's bid envelope.[1]  The fact that Lusa may have 
modified its bid in such a manner on previous procurements is not 
relevant to the propriety of accepting this bid modification.  See, 
e.g., Barnes Electric Co., Inc., supra, at 3.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Lusa argues, in the alternative, that the envelope inscription is 
not a bid modification but part of the bid.  This argument has no 
merit.  See Barnes Elec. Co., Inc., supra; Government Contract Servs., 
Inc., supra.