Skip to Highlights
Highlights

A firm protested the Forest Service's rejection of its bid for reforestation as nonresponsive, contending that the Forest Service should have waived its failure to acknowledge a solicitation amendment which increased fringe benefits payments, because it never received the amendment; and (2) the amendment did not affect its bid, since it paid its workers more than the required minimum wage. GAO held that: (1) since the Forest Service mailed the amendment to all potential bidders, the protester carried the risk of not receiving the amendment; and (2) since acknowledgement of the amendment after bid would allow the bidder to decide not to cure the defect, that would compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement system. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Full Report