B-234117, Feb 21, 1989, 89-1 CPD 181
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bid guarantees - Sureties - Acceptability DIGEST: Protest that awardee's use of individual sureties was unacceptable to meet the bonding requirement on a solicitation for repair of marine vessels is dismissed where Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 28.201 provides that individual sureties are an acceptable form of security for bid bonds. We dismiss the protest after receiving an agency report since it is clear that the protest is without merit. The bond and affidavits were determined to be in the proper form and in a sufficient amount. Essentially it is challenging the right of Newport to submit individual sureties to secure the obligation on its bid bond. Federal Acquisition Regulations Secs. 28.201(a) and (b) state that individual sureties are an acceptable form of security and that a solicitation shall not preclude bidders from using individual sureties.
B-234117, Feb 21, 1989, 89-1 CPD 181
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bid guarantees - Sureties - Acceptability DIGEST: Protest that awardee's use of individual sureties was unacceptable to meet the bonding requirement on a solicitation for repair of marine vessels is dismissed where Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 28.201 provides that individual sureties are an acceptable form of security for bid bonds, except where prohibited by law or regulation, and the protester did not identify a specific law or regulation that prohibits their use for this procurement.
Promet Marine Services Corporation:
Promet Marine Services Corporation protests the award of a contract to Newport Offshore Ltd. for top side maintenance and machinery repair to the SS Cape Ann and the SS Cape Avinof under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTMA92-89-B-90100, issued by the American Overseas Marine Corporation, as ship managers for the Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. Promet contends that Newport's personal assurances did not satisfy the IFB's bonding requirement.
We dismiss the protest after receiving an agency report since it is clear that the protest is without merit. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1988).
In response to the IFB's requirement for bonding, Newport submitted two individual sureties as security for its bid bond on Standard Form 24, accompanied by affidavits of individual surety on Standard Form 28, which listed their current assets, liabilities, and net worth. The Maritime Administration reports that, after review, the bond and affidavits were determined to be in the proper form and in a sufficient amount.
Although Promet argues that personal assurances should not be considered a substitute for bonding, essentially it is challenging the right of Newport to submit individual sureties to secure the obligation on its bid bond. Federal Acquisition Regulations Secs. 28.201(a) and (b) state that individual sureties are an acceptable form of security and that a solicitation shall not preclude bidders from using individual sureties, unless prohibited by law or regulation. Since Promet did not identify a specific law or regulation which prohibits the use of individual sureties in this kind of procurement, we find that the protest has no legal merit.
The protest is dismissed.