B-244659.4, Aug 27, 1991, Office of General Counsel
Highlights
DIGEST: Protest is dismissed where. Agency's corrective action was the same as the recommendation the General Accounting Office would make under the circumstances. The facts here are identical to those in Shifa Servs. We found that the omission of a distinct signature line from a solicitation's Certificate of Procurement Integrity was a latent ambiguity which misled bidders into believing that a separate signature on the Certificate was not required. The appropriate remedy is cancellation and resolicitation. Award could not be made to it because its bid was nonresponsive for failure to include a separate signature on the Certificate of Procurement Integrity. Is not only appropriate. Since it is precisely what we would have recommended had Bosco's earlier protest been considered on the merits.
B-244659.4, Aug 27, 1991, Office of General Counsel
DIGEST: Protest is dismissed where, in response to a previous protest of the rejection of protester's bid as nonresponsive for failure to submit a signed Certificate of Procurement Integrity, agency terminated awardee's
contract for the convenience of the government and proposed to resolicit
the requirement, notwithstanding that the protester requested award of the
contract in its protest; agency's corrective action was the same as the
recommendation the General Accounting Office would make under the
circumstances.
Attorneys
Bosco Contracting, Inc.:
Bosco Contracting, Inc. protests the cancellation of invitation for bids
(IFB) No. DAKF36-91-B-0032, issued by the Department of the Army for
custodial services at Fort Drum, New York, and the agency's proposed
resolicitation of the requirement.
We summarily dismiss the protest without first obtaining an
administrative report from the contracting agency because it does not
state a valid basis for protest.
See 56 Fed.Reg. 3,759 (1991) (to be
codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)).
In an earlier protest to our Office, Bosco protested the rejection of its
bid as nonresponsive for failure to submit a signed Certificate of
Procurement Integrity as required by the IFB.
We summarily dismissed that
protest in Bosco Contracting, Inc.; Capital Servs., Inc., B-244659.2;
B-244659.3, Aug. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. ***, because the agency
terminated
the awardee's contract and proposed to resolicit the procurement,
rendering the protest academic.
See East West Research Inc.-- Recon.,
B-233623.2, Apr. 14, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 379.
Bosco now objects to the
agency's cancellation of the IFB and proposed resolicitation of the
requirement, asserting that as the low bidder, it should be awarded the
contract.
The facts here are identical to those in Shifa Servs., Inc., B-242686,
May 20, 1991, 70 Comp.Gen. ***, 91-1 CPD Para. 483.
In that decision, we
found that the omission of a distinct signature line from a solicitation's
Certificate of Procurement Integrity was a latent ambiguity which misled
bidders into believing that a separate signature on the Certificate was
not required, thereby rendering their bids nonresponsive.
See Mid-East
Contractors, Inc., B-242435, Mar. 29, 1991, 70 Comp.Gen. ***, 91-1 CPD
Para. 342 (omission from a bid of a signed Certificate of Procurement
Integrity renders bid nonresponsive and must be rejected).
Similarly
here, the Certificate of Procurement Integrity included in the IFB failed
to provide a distinct signature line, and the protester failed to enter a
separate signature on the Certificate.
Where, as here, a solicitation contains a latent ambiguity that misleads
bidders into submitting nonresponsive bids, the appropriate remedy is
cancellation and resolicitation; contrary to Bosco's contention, award
could not be made to it because its bid was nonresponsive for failure to
include a separate signature on the Certificate of Procurement Integrity.
See Shifa Servs., Inc., B-242686, supra. The agency's proposed remedy,
therefore, is not only appropriate, but since it is precisely what we
would have recommended had Bosco's earlier protest been considered on the
merits, see Shifa Servs., Inc., B-242686, supra, Bosco has not stated a
valid basis for protest.
Bade Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., B-243496, June
25, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 606.
The protest is dismissed.