GAO: Failure to Acknowledge Material Amendment Requires Bid Rejection
On February 5, 2026, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained the protest of Morrish‑Wallace Construction d/b/a Ryba Marine Construction Co., B‑423796.2, ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers improperly awarded the contract due to awardee’s failure to acknowledge a material solicitation amendment, a bid defect that cannot be cured under federal procurement law.
The decision is a reminder that specification changes that seem relatively insignificant can still be legally material, which makes it essential for bidders to track and acknowledge every amendment or risk losing award eligibility. Equally, strategic protest opportunities can arise when the contract awardee overlooks a material change to the Solicitation or IFB.
Factual Background
The Corps solicited bids to build a new steel pile offloading platform to support marine operations at the West Dickinson Island Confined Disposal Facility in Michigan.
The agency issued three amendments to the IFB. The third amendment revised wage rates for landscape laborers and increased the required size of the platform’s steel pile cap, increasing the dimensions to ensure proper fit with existing sheet pile walls.
Korneffel, the awardee, submitted the lowest‑priced bid but failed to acknowledge Amendment 3. The Corps initially deemed the bid nonresponsive but later reversed course, concluding that the amendment had only a “negligible” price impact and thus constituted a minor informality that could be waived. After reinstating Korneffel’s bid and awarding the contract, Ryba, the next bidder in line, protested.
GAO’s Analysis
GAO’s decision draws a clear distinction between immaterial amendments (which may be waived) and material ones (which may not be).
GAO ultimately agreed that the wage‑rate update was not material because the revised classification of landscape laborers was not even required for the project and would not be used by either bidder. Thus, this amendment did not change the contractor’s obligations, and was therefore immaterial. Had Amendment 3 only contained this revision, failure by any bidder to acknowledge it would not have resulted in a finding of nonresponsiveness.
However, the analysis, and ultimate result, was different for Amendment 3’s specification change to the steel pile cap. GAO found that increasing the size of the cap was a substantive change to the project’s performance requirements. Even though the associated cost increase was modest (roughly 1% of contract value), the legal question was whether the amendment changed what the contractor was obligated to deliver.
GAO emphasized that price impact alone is not determinative. If an amendment changes the contractor’s performance obligations, however minor the cost, the amendment is material. Here, the size change directly impacted the contractor’s capacity to perform: the smaller cap size was incompatible with the platform’s sheet pile walls.
Outcome and Contractor Takeaways
Because Korneffel did not acknowledge Amendment 3, its bid did not legally bind the company to install the required larger cap. Under GAO precedent, such a defect cannot be waived. GAO sustained the protest and recommended that the Corps terminate the improperly awarded contract, make award to Ryba (if otherwise eligible), and reimburse Ryba’s protest costs.
For federal construction and marine contractors, the decision reinforces several key points:
- Always confirm acknowledgment of every amendment: even “minor” technical changes can be legally material.
- Responsiveness is assessed at bid opening, and post‑bid corrections cannot cure failure to accept material requirements.
- Agencies cannot waive a defect that leaves a bidder unbound to revised performance specifications.
Contractors with questions about sealed bidding, amendment tracking, and responsiveness issues are encouraged to contact our Government Contracts team for guidance tailored to their operations.