TITLE:  Singleton Enterprises, B-295562, February 25, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-295562
DATE:  February 25, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Singleton Enterprises

   File:            B-295562

   Date:              February 25, 2005

   Wayne Singleton for the protester.

   Keith A. Moore-Erickson, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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

   Awardee's bid for dredging a boat basin and channel was responsive, even
though it failed to acknowledge an amendment, which provided the precise
location of disposal area for the dredging material, an area that was
identified in the initial invitation for bids, because the amendment did
not impose any additional legal obligations and therefore was not
material.

   DECISION

   Singleton Enterprises protests the award of a contract to W.C. Fore
Trucking, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. HSCG82-05-B-3WCA20,
issued by the United States Coast Guard, for dredging the small boat basin
and channel at the Coast Guard Station, Gulfport, Mississippi.  Singleton
contends that Fore Trucking's bid should have been rejected as
nonresponsive for failing to acknowledge a material amendment.

   We deny the protest.

   The IFB, posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website
on November 10, 2004, as a small business set-aside, sought proposals for
dredging an estimated base quantity of 20,814 cubic yards of material from
the small boat basin and channel.  The IFB required the dredge material to
be "transported and deposited at the Harrison County Development
Commission Dredge Material Disposal Area Ca**1" in accordance with the
"Conditions For Use" of the disposal area, as set forth in an appendix to
the IFB.  IFB S 01010, P 1.2.1, S 02325, P 3.3, append. 

   Following release of the IFB, the Coast Guard received approval to use the
Mississippi Port Authority terminal for transferring the dredge material
to the disposal area.  To notify bidders of the authorized transfer point,
the agency issued amendment No. 0001, dated October 26, which among other
things stated the following:

   The Coast Guard has obtained permission from the Mississippi State Port
Authority at Gulfport, MS, to use the Northwest corner of the West
Terminal to transfer the dredge material onto trucks for final transit to
the upland disposal area.  

   In response to a potential bidder's inquiry concerning the location of the
disposal area, the Coast Guard also issued amendment No. 0002, dated
November 11, which provided the bidders with aerial maps of the boat basin
and channel and Harrison County Development Commission Dredge Material
Disposal Area C-1.

   At bid opening on November 22, the Coast Guard received a bid of
$411,749.60 from Fore Trucking and a bid from Singleton of $564,582. 
Although Fore Trucking's low bid properly acknowledged amendment No. 0001,
it did not properly acknowledge amendment No. 0002 because the
acknowledgement was sent by facsimile, which was not authorized in the
IFB.  The Coast Guard determined that Fore Trucking's bid nevertheless was
responsive, in that amendment No.A 0002 was not material; the failure to
acknowledge this amendment therefore could be waived as a minor
informality.  After bid opening, Fore Trucking claimed a mistake in bid
related to its price, which, after agency review, Fore Trucking was
allowed to correct; this increased it bid price to $482,897.60.  Award was
made to Fore Trucking on December 8.  Singleton filed an agency-level
protest, which the Coast Guard denied, and this to our Office protest
followed.

   Singleton contends that amendment No. 0002 was material because it was
necessary to calculate the cost of transporting the dredge material from
the transfer point to the disposal area and to clarify an ambiguity
regarding the location of the disposal area.  Singleton maintains that the
IFB as issued lacked sufficient information to determine the distance
between the transfer point and the disposal area because there was no
address, telephone contact, or map of the disposal area.  It also argues
that amendment No. 0001 created an ambiguity as to what location would
constitute the disposal area because of its reference to an "upland
disposal area" rather than the Harrison County Development Commission
Dredge Material Disposal Area C-1. 

   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.  Federal
Constr., Inc., B-279638, B-279638.2, July 2, 1998, 98-2 CPD P 65 atA 2. 
An amendment is material only if it would have more than a trivial impact
on the price, quantity, quality, delivery, or the relative standing of the

   bidders.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S 14.405(d)(2); Kalex
Constr. & Dev., Inc., B-278076.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD P 25 at 2.  An
amendment is not material where it does not impose any legal obligations
on the bidder different from those imposed by the original solicitation;
that is, for example, where it merely clarifies an existing requirement or
is a matter of form.  Kalex Constr. & Dev., Inc., supra.  A bidder's
failure to acknowledge an amendment that is not material is waivable as a
minor informality.  FAR S 14.405; Overstreet Elec. Co., Inc., Ba**283830,
B-283830.2, Dec. 30, 1999, 2000 CPD P 8 at 7.

   Here, we find that amendment No. 0002 was not material because it only
provided bidders with additional information about the location of the
Harrison County Development Commission Dredge Material Disposal Area C-1
that was previously designated as the place where bidders were required to
transport and dispose of the dredge material.  The information regarding
the precise location of this disposal site, while useful to bidders that
may not have otherwise determined its location, did not impose legal
obligations or requirements different from those contained in the original
IFB, including amendment No.A 0001.[1]  See Angus Fire Armour Corp.,
Ba**237211.2, Jan. 18, 1990, 90-1 CPD P 68 at 3. 

   The reference to the "upland disposal area" in amendment No. 0001 did not
render ambiguous the location of the required dredge material disposal
area.  Not only did amendment No. 0001 not change the required disposal
area identified in the original IFB, but the Coast Guard advises that
"upland disposal area" is a term commonly used to refer to land lying
above the level where water flows, as was the case here.  In sum, because
amendment No. 0002 was not material, the agency properly waived Fore
Trucking's failure to acknowledge this amendment, and properly found the
bid responsive.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The Coast Guard advises that the maps included in amendment No. 0002
were available to anyone who contacted the Commission or searched the
Mapquest website on the Internet.