Matter of: Aero Independent Bearing Company, Inc.-- Reconsideration File No.: B-258017.3 Date: January 17, 1995

B-258017.3: Jan 17, 1995

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

Aero's bid was rejected as nonresponsive since it failed to provide a bid deposit. We held that the agency's rejection of Aero's bid as nonresponsive was proper since the record showed that Aero failed to submit a bid deposit with its bid. Because a bid deposit is a form of bid guarantee designed to protect the government's interests in the event of a bidder's default. The requirement to submit a binding bid deposit is material and must be met at the time of bid opening. The bid bond deficiencies were waivable informalities. Aero maintains that it was denied its right to comment on such a report. Although the agency report provided to this Office was prepared in direct response to Aero's first protest ground.

Matter of: Aero Independent Bearing Company, Inc.-- Reconsideration File No.: B-258017.3 Date: January 17, 1995

(no digest)

DECISION

Aero Independent Bearing Company, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Aero Independent Bearing Co., Inc., B-258017; B-258017.2, Nov. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. ___, in which we denied its protest challenging the rejection of its bid and the award of various bid lots to other bidders under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 31-4419, issued by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, Defense Logistics Agency, for the sale of surplus aircraft parts and materials.

We deny the request for reconsideration because it provides no basis for reconsidering our prior decision.

The IFB sought bids for 187 lots of aircraft items and provided that each lot would be awarded to the highest bidder for each lot. The IFB also required bidders to submit a bid deposit equal to 20 percent of the total bid price.

At the July 28 bid opening, Aero's bid was rejected as nonresponsive since it failed to provide a bid deposit. On July 29, Aero filed a protest with this Office challenging the rejection of its bid; shortly thereafter, Aero filed a second protest alleging that the agency had improperly waived the 20 percent bid deposit requirement for several of the bid lot awardees.

By decision dated November 29, we denied both of Aero's protests. First, we held that the agency's rejection of Aero's bid as nonresponsive was proper since the record showed that Aero failed to submit a bid deposit with its bid; as explained in our decision, because a bid deposit is a form of bid guarantee designed to protect the government's interests in the event of a bidder's default, the requirement to submit a binding bid deposit is material and must be met at the time of bid opening. See N. G. Simonowich, 70 Comp.Gen. 28 (1990), 90-2 CPD Para. 298.

With respect to Aero's second contention--that the agency had improperly waived the bid deposit requirement for several awardees--we concluded that although several bidders had submitted bid deposits which did not equal 20 percent of their total bid prices, because the submitted deposits did indemnify the government for 20 percent of the actual awarded bid lot amounts, the bid bond deficiencies were waivable informalities. See Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 28.101-4(c) (3). Consequently, we denied the second protest as well.

On reconsideration, Aero maintains that our prior decision warrants reversal since we never received an agency report addressing Aero's second protest contention that the agency had improperly waived the bid bond requirement for several awardees. Aero maintains that it was denied its right to comment on such a report, and consequently, our original decision should be reversed. We find this argument without merit.

Although the agency report provided to this Office was prepared in direct response to Aero's first protest ground--that Aero's bid had been improperly rejected--the report also provided sufficient information to resolve Aero's second contention that the agency improperly waived the bid bond requirement for several awardees. Specifically, the report included a detailed bid abstract sheet--setting forth each bid lot award amount--as well as each awardee's bid bond documents--which on their face demonstrated that each awardee had indemnified the government for 20 percent of the actual amount. In light of this clear record, there was no requirement that we wait for comments from Aero before deciding the issue. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1994); AOI Sys., Inc.--Recon., B-240768.2, Oct. 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 300; Sermor, Inc.--Recon., B-220041.2, Oct. 9, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 394.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). Aero has not met that standard here; Aero offers no basis for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with our original decision. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.