Protest Alleging Failure of Army To Furnish Material Amendment to IFB

B-198885: Jul 17, 1980

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A company protested the award of a contract for four maintenance dredging projects. The protester contended that the contract should have been terminated and the requirement readvertised because the contracting agency did not furnish them with a material amendment to the invitation for bids (IFB), thus rendering it's bid nonresponsive. Six days prior to the date that the IFB was sent to the protester, the IFB was amended. The protester, however, stated that it did not receive the amendment. In support, they provided the sworn statement of its chief executive officer. He said that the package sent by the contracting agency contained the IFB, but not the amendment. In response, the agency reported that the protester was sent both the IFB and the amendment. In support, the agency provided the signed statement of the procurement clerk responsible for sending the package to the protester. The clerk stated that the package contained both the IFB and the amendment. GAO concluded that the protester had not carried its burden of establishing the validity of its contention that the Government was responsible for it's failure to be aware of the amendment. Accordingly, the company's protest was denied.