One unacknowledged amendment, about a steel channel, worth roughly one percent of the contract. The Corps of Engineers looked at it and decided it was a minor informality. GAO disagreed and terminated the award.
The Army Corps issued an invitation for bids on a steel pile offloading platform. Its third amendment revised a technical specification: the sheet pile cap changed from a C 15x33.9 channel to a larger MC 18x42.7, because the original could not accommodate dimensional irregularities in the pile walls. The Corps put the added material cost at roughly $21,000, somewhere between one and two percent of the contract.
E.C. Korneffel Co. submitted the low bid and won. It had never acknowledged that third amendment.
The second-low bidder protested. The Corps had already considered the omission and treated it as a minor informality it could waive, which agencies are sometimes permitted to do. The contracting officer had separately described the specification change itself as “substantive in nature.”
GAO sustained the protest and recommended the Corps terminate Korneffel’s contract, award to the protester instead, and reimburse the protester’s costs including attorney fees.
The intuitive test is money, and the intuition is wrong. GAO’s test is whether the amendment changed what the winner would be obliged to do.
“An amendment is deemed material to an IFB if the amendment adds requirements to contract performance which were not contained in the original IFB.”
The mechanism underneath it is worth understanding properly, because it is not pedantry. By not acknowledging the amendment, Korneffel was never legally bound to supply the larger cap. Had the award stood, it could have accepted or rejected the revised terms after the fact, while every competitor that acknowledged the amendment was already bound to them.
That is not the same competition. Korneffel had bid on a different job from everyone else and won on price. The percentage was never the point.
The agency was willing to let it go. The Corps looked directly at the missing acknowledgment, decided it was waivable, and made the award anyway.
It did not matter. A competitor protested, and GAO applied a stricter standard than the customer had. So the reassurance most first-time bidders are quietly running on — our contracting officer knows us, they will not be difficult about small things — is not protection. Your buyer is not the last reader of your submission. The bidder who came second is, and they have sixty days and a real financial motive.
Amendments arrive by email, often several, often in the last days before the deadline, usually while everyone is heads-down finishing the thing they are already late on. Some are trivial. One moves a spec. They look identical in an inbox.
A company with a proposal function has one person whose job includes a running amendment log and a final check that each is acknowledged in the submitted form. A company without one has an engineer who saw the email, understood the change, updated the design, and never filled in the box on the form that records it. The technical work was done correctly. The acknowledgment is a separate act.
How many amendments has this solicitation issued, and can you point to where each one is acknowledged in what you are about to send? If the answer to the first is “I think two,” you do not have an amendment log, and the last teardown is about what that costs.
The bidder who came second is, and they are reading it for a living. Somebody should read yours that way first.
One live bid, read in 72 hours · $7,500 →