John D. Lucas Printing Company, B-285730, September 20, 2000

B-285730 Sep 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lucas contends that the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because News failed to acknowledge a material amendment to the solicitation. There are two different post cards. (There were no other specified evaluation or selection factors.). The contracting officer determined that the News bid was responsive. That News was bound to perform the contract in accordance with the amended terms because it had not objected to the ambiguity prior to the submission of bids. The contracting officer determined that that amendment also was not material. The protester asserts that the News bid was nonresponsive because that firm failed to acknowledge two amendments to the solicitation. The protester further argues that there is no evidence that News agreed to a separate bound in card. View Decision Matter of: John D. Lucas Printing Company File: B-285730 Date: September 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION John D. Lucas Printing Company protests the award of a contract to News Printing Co., Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 466-378, issued by the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) for publications. Lucas contends that the awardee's bid was nonresponsive because News failed to acknowledge a material amendment to the solicitation. We sustain the protest. As originally issued, the solicitation contained specifications for publication of a pamphlet, entitled "Medicare and You," for the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). HCFA must, by statute, inform Medicare beneficiaries of health insurance options by October 15 of each year; HCFA issues the pamphlet to meet this statutory mandate. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395w-21 (Supp. IV 1998). Some versions of the pamphlet--"items" under the bid schedule--include a mail back post card. The solicitation contained the following specification: PRODUCT: Six versions of estimated 76, 80 and 84 page publications with separate wraparound cover saddle-wire stitched. Two versions (Item 1 and Item 2) require bound in mail back card in only the self-mailer copies. There are two different post cards. One for Item 1 and a different card for Item 2 . . . . IFB at 2. At the bottom of the page with the above quoted language, a chart provided information on six items; one column headed "Post Card" contained the word "YES" opposite items 1, 2, and 6. Id. The "Determination of Award" clause advised offerors which items and subitems the agency would evaluate in determining low price. Id. at 10. (There were no other specified evaluation or selection factors.) For item 6, the agency solicited a price for a "32-page section, cover with card." Id. The schedule of prices, on the same page, included the following, with blanks for inserting prices: Item Item Item Item Item Item Add'l 1 2 3 4 5 6 1,000 (1) Basic 32 page ____ ____ ____ ____ section and cover w/o card (2) Basic 32 page ____ ____ ____ ____ section, cover with card (3) 32 pages ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (4) 16 pages ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (5) 8 pages ____ ____ (6) 4 pages ____ ____ ____ ____ Id. This price schedule agreed with the chart on page 2 of the IFB and the "Determination of Award" clause in requiring a card for Item 6. The product specifications required a "bound in mail back card" only for Items 1 and 2. The solicitation established a bid opening date of May 31, 2000. Id. at 1. News submitted a bid on that date. Shortly before the bid opening time on May 31, the agency issued amendment No. 1 to the IFB, which corrected the specifications to state that item 6, as well as items 1 and 2, would require the "bound in mail back card" in the self-mailer copies and which stated that there would be three different post cards, "one each for items 1, 2, and 6." Amend. No. 1, at 1. That amendment also extended, until June 6, the date on which the agency could issue the first purchase order. Id. Amendment No. 2, also issued on May 31, added some subitems to the "Determination of Award" clause. Amend. No. 2, at 1. (The schedule, supra, already contained blank lines for pricing the subitems.) On June 1, the agency issued amendment No. 3, which extended the bid opening date to June 5 and the date on which the agency could issue the first purchase order to June 8. The agency received seven bids, one of which it rejected as nonresponsive. In its low priced bid submitted on June 5, News acknowledged amendment No. 3, but not amendment Nos. 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the contracting officer determined that the News bid was responsive, essentially because he did not consider amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to be material. Memorandum from Contracting Officer to Contract Review Board (June 7, 2000). The contracting officer considered that amendment No.