[Protest of Air Force Contract Termination]

A firm protested the termination of its contract and the subsequent award of the contract to the low bidder whose bid was originally found to be nonresponsive. The contracting agency originally found the awardee's bid nonresponsive because the firm submitted the required bid guarantee on a form other than that specified in the solicitation. The protester asserted that: (1) failure to comply strictly with any solicitation requirement regarding bid guarantees mandated bid rejection; and (2) the controlling law was that in the state in which the contract formation occurred. GAO found that the use of a bid bond form other than the one required was not objectionable where intent of surety, principal, and identity of the United States as intended and true obligee were clearly shown by the bond itself. Only in the absence of a source of federal law will GAO look to state law to determine the validity of a bid bond. Accordingly, the protest was denied.