Protest of Corps of Engineers Contract Award

A firm protested the award of a small business set-aside contract. The protester alleged that the awardee's bid should have been disqualified because it: (1) incorrectly certified in its bid that it was a small disadvantaged business concern; (2) listed the wrong dates in acknowledging the receipt of bid amendments which indicated that the awardee either received all three of the amendments at the same time or before the other bidders; and (3) was unable to meet the solicitation specifications. It also questioned the handwritten bid prices on the awardee's typewritten bid, objected to the award being made while the protest was pending, and requested that GAO investigate the entire proceedings surrounding the bid and solicitation. GAO held that the incorrect certification by the awardee was a minor informality, because the solicitation was a small business set-aside and not a small disadvantaged business set-aside. It believed that the awardee inadvertently copied the issuance date of the invitation for bids (IFB), August 24, instead of the amendment dates in acknowledging the IFB amendments because the protester used the bid form furnished with amendment 2 which was stamped with the date the awardee received it, September 14. Here the protester failed to prove its allegation. The allegation that the awardee could not meet the IFB specifications is a matter of agency affirmative determination which GAO will not disturb absent alleged fraud on the part of contracting officials and solicitation criteria of definitive responsibility which were allegedly not applied. There is no prohibition against the submission of a typewritten bid containing handwritten bid prices. Even if the award had been contrary to cited regulations, its legality was not effected when it was made while the protest was pending before GAO. GAO does not make investigations to ascertain the validity of a protester's statements, therefore, the burden of proof is on the the protester. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.