B-235620.3, Sep 27, 1989, 89-2 CPD 276

B-235620.3: Sep 27, 1989

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision denying protest against agency's nonresponsibility determination based upon unacceptability of individual sureties is denied where protester does not establish any factual or legal errors in the prior decision. We concluded that the Navy acted reasonably in determining that the two individual sureties proposed by KASDT were unacceptable for failure to furnish adequate documentation of ownership and value of claimed assets. That KASDT therefore was not a responsible bidder. That the Navy should have conducted an investigation before it determined that the sureties were unacceptable.

B-235620.3, Sep 27, 1989, 89-2 CPD 276

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision denying protest against agency's nonresponsibility determination based upon unacceptability of individual sureties is denied where protester does not establish any factual or legal errors in the prior decision.

KASDT Corporation-- Request for Reconsideration:

KASDT Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision in KASDT Corp., B-235620, Aug. 21, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. ***, wherein we denied its protest of the Navy's rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62474-86-B-0609, for a hangar modification at the Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California.

We deny the request.

In our prior decision, we concluded that the Navy acted reasonably in determining that the two individual sureties proposed by KASDT were unacceptable for failure to furnish adequate documentation of ownership and value of claimed assets, and that KASDT therefore was not a responsible bidder. In its request for reconsideration, KASDT argues that its sureties submitted adequate evidence of the value of their principle assets, gold tailings, in the form of reports showing the value of the gold remaining in the ore, and that the Navy should have conducted an investigation before it determined that the sureties were unacceptable.

KASTD's arguments do not warrant reconsideration. We denied the firm's prior protest, not solely due to the absence of evidence of the value of gold tailings, but on the basis of several material informational deficiencies and inconsistencies regarding the sureties' net worths. For example, notwithstanding KASDT's alleged proof of the value of the tailings, we found in our decision that no evidence had been furnished establishing the individuals' unencumbered ownership of the tailings. Further, the signatory on both Certificates of Sufficiency were unacceptable since the person listed was determined to be a trustee (not an officer as required) of a trust that is unregistered with and unknown to the trust division of the Maryland banking authorities. Other information submitted by the protester's sureties cast doubt on the credibility of the information submitted. For example, the information submitted indicated one surety had inflated the value of one of his assets by a factor of at least six, and that the other proposed surety, claimed ownership of property be held only as a trustee, not as owner, with no apparent right to transfer or encumber that property. The arguments and information KASDT presents do nothing to render the determination of surety unacceptability, based on all the above considerations, unreasonable or otherwise improper.

KASDT also complains that it was afforded insufficient time to furnish the supporting information requested by the agency after bid opening. KASDT did not raise this argument in its original protest, however, and it thus is not now a basis for reconsidering our prior decision. Minuteman Aviation, Inc.-- Request for Recon., B-231504.2, Oct. 13, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 348.

Since the protester has presented no timely arguments or information establishing that our prior decision was legally or factually erroneous, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1989), the request for reconsideration is denied.