[Requests for Reconsideration of Decision Concerning Protest Under Navy IFB]

Two firms requested reconsideration of a decision which found that the Navy reasonably determined that they were not responsible bidders due to the failure of their individual sureties to disclose all of their outstanding bond obligations under other contracts. In its surety's request for reconsideration, one protester contended that none of its surety's nondisclosures preceded the submission of its bid; therefore, no pattern of nondisclosure could have existed at that time. The other protester contended that the original decision did not address the sufficiency of the proposed awardee's bid bond, which was defective because the individual who executed the certificate for one of the sureties was not an officer of a bank or trust company. GAO found that: (1) there was no basis for the first protester's contention that its surety's pattern of disclosure began only after its bid bond was submitted under the current solicitation since the Navy cited two cases that occurred before the protester's bond was submitted; (2) since the other protester knew or should have known of the awardee's allegedly defective bid bond when its first protest was filed and did not file a protest within 10 days of that time, its request was untimely filed, it was considered untimely; and (3) even if a certificate of sufficiency were defective, it would constitute a minor procedural irregularity which could be corrected after bid opening. Accordingly, the requests for reconsideration were denied.