B-245179.2, October 24, 1991
Highlights
DIGEST: Protest challenging proposed awardee's compliance with the certificate of independent price determination clause is dismissed as it concerns a matter of responsibility. U Liners alleges that NuPipe is ineligible for award because it submitted a false certificate of independent price determination. U-Liners alleges that NuPipe falsely certified that it independently arrived at its bid price because NuPipe is a division or subsidiary of Insituform East. Both bids were signed by the same individual. An allegation that a bidder has violated this provision is not for resolution by our Office but. Is a matter for consideration by the contracting officer in determining the responsibility of the proposed awardee.
B-245179.2, October 24, 1991
DIGEST: Protest challenging proposed awardee's compliance with the certificate of independent price determination clause is dismissed as it concerns a matter of responsibility, which the General Accounting Office does not generally review.
Attorneys
U-Liners Contracting Co., Inc.:
U-Liners Contracting Co., Inc. protests the award of a contract to NuPipe East, a Division of Insituform East, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F49642-91-B-0039, issued by the Department of the Air Force for replacement of sewer lines at Andrews Air Force Base. U Liners alleges that NuPipe is ineligible for award because it submitted a false certificate of independent price determination.
We dismiss the protest.
U-Liners alleges that NuPipe falsely certified that it independently arrived at its bid price because NuPipe is a division or subsidiary of Insituform East, which also participated in the competition as a bidder, and both bids were signed by the same individual.
The Certificate of Independent Price Determination clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.203-2 requires a bidder to certify that it has arrived at its price independently, has not disclosed its price to other competitors, and has not attempted to induce another firm either to submit or not to submit a bid for the purpose of restricting competition. An allegation that a bidder has violated this provision is not for resolution by our Office but, rather, is a matter for consideration by the contracting officer in determining the responsibility of the proposed awardee. Seyforth Roofing Co., Inc., B-241719.2, Mar. 11, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 268. Since collusive bidding is a criminal offense, if the contracting officer suspects that there is collusion, the matter should be referred to the Attorney General. Id.
The protest is dismissed.