B-175538, APR 21, 1972

B-175538: Apr 21, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

IT IS THE OPINION OF THE COMP. THE PROTEST IS DENIED. CAMPBELL COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 29. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ITSELF COMPLETE AND IN PROPER FORM SAVE FOR THE CERTIFICATION BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SURETY THAT THE POWER HAD NOT BEEN REVOKED BUT WAS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. THE CERTIFICATION WAS NOT DATED. THE CERTIFICATION ITSELF WAS PROPERLY SIGNED AND WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH SIGNATURE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE CERTIFICATION. SINCE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS OTHERWISE IN PROPER FORM. THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

B-175538, APR 21, 1972

BID PROTEST - ALLEGED IMPROPER BID DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF ALLEN M. CAMPBELL COMPANY AGAINST THE ANTICIPATED AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO DUKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY UNDER AN IFB ISSUED BY THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND. IT IS THE OPINION OF THE COMP. GEN. THAT DUKE'S FAILURE TO DATE THE CERTIFICATION IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE SURETY AND MAY BE WAIVED AS A DEFECT IN FORM ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.

TO ALLEN M. CAMPBELL COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 29, 1972, AND PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, PROTESTING AGAINST THE ANTICIPATED AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO DUKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (DUKE) UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS N62470-71 B- 0989, ISSUED BY THE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND.

AS REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION, DUKE SUBMITTED, WITH ITS BID, A BID BOND IN PROPER FORM AND AMOUNT ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY INDICATING THE AUTHORITY OF THE SURETY'S AGENT-IN-FACT. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ITSELF COMPLETE AND IN PROPER FORM SAVE FOR THE CERTIFICATION BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE SURETY THAT THE POWER HAD NOT BEEN REVOKED BUT WAS STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. ALTHOUGH SIGNED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, THE CERTIFICATION WAS NOT DATED. YOU CONTEND THAT THE OMISSION OF THIS DATE REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DUKE'S BID. DISAGREE.

THE CERTIFICATION ITSELF WAS PROPERLY SIGNED AND WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH SIGNATURE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE CERTIFICATION. SINCE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS OTHERWISE IN PROPER FORM, THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT SIGNING FOR THE SURETY HAD THE POWER TO OBLIGATE THE SURETY TO THE UNDERTAKING OF THE BID BOND. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE FAILURE TO DATE THE CERTIFICATION IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE SURETY AND MAY BE WAIVED AS A DEFECT IN FORM ONLY.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST IS DENIED.