Skip to main content

[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Freight Elevator Rehabilitation]

B-220655 Published: Jan 28, 1986. Publicly Released: Jan 28, 1986.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested a Navy contract award for freight elevator rehabilitation, contending that: (1) the awardee's bid was not responsive since the awardee did not manufacture elevators or major components nor purchase all of its components from a single manufacturer, which constituted a material deviation from the solicitation specifications; (2) the awardee listed different names in its bid and did not identify a single entity that would be bound in the event of award; and (3) the awardee incorrectly listed its parent company. GAO has held that: (1) assertions as to the ability and intent of an awardee to supply the equipment required involve bidder responsibility, which GAO will not review unless there is a show of fraud or bad faith; (2) where a bid submitted in the name of one entity is accompanied by a bid bond in the name of a different entity, the bid bond is materially deficient since the surety obligation is unclear; (3) the name of the bidding entity need not be exactly the same in all of the bid documents as long as it can be established that the differently identified entities are the same; and (4) errors or omissions of information that do not affect the commitment to perform may be waived or cured after bid opening. GAO found that: (1) the name listed on the bid bond was exactly the same as that in the bidder's name space on the bid; (2) although they included different names, the addresses were the same; and (3) the parent company listing did not relate to the bidder's contractual commitment to perform. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bid bondsBid errorsBid evaluation protestsBid responsivenessContract award protestsNaval procurementSolicitation specificationsWaivers