B-229062, Nov 13, 1987, 87-2 CPD 484
Highlights
The IFB had four provisions relating to the bid guarantee: block 13.B stated that a guarantee was required. Bid guarantees were required. Section L.5 stated that the estimated magnitude of the construction was between $25. In contending that its bid should not have been rejected. A bid bond may be required only when a performance or payment bond is mandated. Because the IFB stated the bid bond requirement applied only where the contract was "expected to exceed" $25. A bid bond did not have to accompany a bid of less than that amount. The invitation was unclear as to whether a bid bond was necessary for a bid of less than $25. The protest is denied.
B-229062, Nov 13, 1987, 87-2 CPD 484
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bids - Bid Guarantees - Omission - Responsiveness DIGEST: The failure to furnish a required bid guarantee renders the bid nonresponsive, and may not be waived.
LTT Constructors, Inc:
LTT Contractors, Inc., the low bidder, protests the rejection of its bid of $20,752 as nonresponsive for failure to submit a bid guarantee under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DLA-003-87-B-0049, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the replacement of hydraulic ramps at the Defense Depot in Ogden, Utah.
We deny the protest.
The IFB had four provisions relating to the bid guarantee: block 13.B stated that a guarantee was required; section H.6 stated that for contracts "expected to exceed" $25,000, bid guarantees were required; the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause at 48 C.F.R. Sec. 52.228-1 (1986), incorporated by reference, stated that the failure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for bid opening, may result in the rejection of the bid; and section L.5 stated that the estimated magnitude of the construction was between $25,000 and $100,000.
LTT, in contending that its bid should not have been rejected, notes that the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 270a, as implemented by the FAR, 48 C.F.R. Sec. 28.102-1, only requires performance and payment bonds for construction contracts that exceed $25,000, and that under the FAR, 48 C.F.R. Sec. 28.101-1(a), a bid bond may be required only when a performance or payment bond is mandated. LTT argues that in view of those provisions, and because the IFB stated the bid bond requirement applied only where the contract was "expected to exceed" $25,000, a bid bond did not have to accompany a bid of less than that amount. At best, LTT argues, the invitation was unclear as to whether a bid bond was necessary for a bid of less than $25,000.
In view of the above, the contracting officer properly rejected LTT's bid as nonresponsive. The protest is denied.