## Facts

- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a two-step sealed-bidding procurement requiring submission of Standard Form 1442 (SF-1442) at each step.
- The SF-1442 front side, issued by the government, included material solicitation terms, including a requirement that bids remain open for acceptance for at least 90 days.
- In step one, ECDC Environmental, L.C. submitted a complete SF-1442 and was found technically acceptable.
- In step two, ECDC submitted only the signed back side of SF-1442 and omitted the front side containing the 90-day bid-acceptance period.
- After bid opening, the Corps determined ECDC’s step-two bid did not, on its face, bind ECDC to the 90-day acceptance period and rejected the bid as nonresponsive without allowing supplementation.
- ECDC filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims and sought summary judgment, arguing the omission was clerical and that the missing terms were incorporated by reference.

## Issues

1. Whether omission of the front side of SF-1442 in step two rendered ECDC’s sealed bid nonresponsive because the bid did not, on its face, bind the bidder to a material 90-day acceptance period.
2. Whether the 90-day acceptance term could be treated as incorporated by reference through submission of the signed back side of SF-1442 or through ECDC’s complete step-one submission.
3. Whether the omission was a correctable mistake or minor informality permitting post-opening correction under mistake-in-bid principles.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims upheld the agency’s determination that ECDC’s step-two bid was nonresponsive.
- The court rejected ECDC’s incorporation-by-reference arguments and treated the step-two sealed bid as required to stand on its own.
- The court held the omission was not a minor informality or clerical mistake because it concerned a material term affecting the bidder’s legal obligation and competitive equality.
- The court denied ECDC’s requested relief and sustained the bid rejection.

## Legal Principles

- In sealed bidding, responsiveness is determined at bid opening; the bid must unequivocally bind the bidder to all material solicitation terms on the face of the bid.
- A bid-acceptance period requirement is material because it defines the time during which the government may accept the offer and preserves equal competition among bidders.
- Missing assent to a material term cannot be cured after bid opening; post-opening supplementation that adds a material commitment compromises sealed-bidding integrity.
- Mistake-in-bid and waiver doctrines generally permit only correction or waiver of minor, nonmaterial irregularities; they do not permit adding material terms or legal obligations after bid opening.

## Conclusion

The court sustained rejection of ECDC’s sealed bid as nonresponsive because the step-two submission omitted the form page containing the material 90-day acceptance term, and the defect could not be cured or supplied by implied incorporation or post-opening correction.


ECDC Env’tl, L.C. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 236 (1998)