[Protest of Rejection of Bids as Nonresponsive]

A firm protested the Navy's rejection of its bids, submitted in response to solicitations for building maintenance and repairs, as nonresponsive. The bids were rejected because the protester's individual securities pledged the same assets, and the Navy took the position that this detracted from the liability of the sureties. It further argued that Defense Acquisition Regulations (DAR's) expect two sureties to have two separate pools of assets. GAO found that this matter did not relate to bid responsiveness but to responsibility. A determination of responsiveness must be made from bid documents available at the time of bid opening. GAO found that the bid bond furnished by the protester was duly executed by two sureties, and neither surety could disavow its obligation under the bond. Therefore, the bond met the bonding requirement and was legally sufficient to establish the joint and several liability of the sureties in the event of default. Accordingly, GAO held that the Navy's determination that the protester's bid was nonresponsive was improper. Further, GAO found no support for the Navy's argument that the DAR's require two separate pools of assets for each surety. GAO found that applicable procurement regulations were satisfied since the net worth of each surety was more than adequate to cover the requirements. Accordingly, the protest was sustained. However, since performance was 50-percent complete on both projects, GAO did not recommend contract termination.