B-239846, May 31, 1990, 90-1 CPD ***

B-239846, May 31, 1990, 90-1 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bids - Responsiveness - Signatures - Omission DIGEST: Agency's determination that bid was nonresponsive is proper where bid was signed with a rubber-stamp signature but was not accompanied by any
evidence showing that, before bid opening, bidder had authorized the use
of a rubber-stamp signature.

A & E Industries, Inc.:

A & E Industries, Inc. (AEI), protests the determination by the Navy that
its bid submitted in response to solicitation No. N62791-90-B-0071 was
nonresponsive because of the use of a rubber-stamp signature.
AEI asserts
that nothing requires the use of an original signature.

A basic rule of federal government contract law is that a bid, to be
valid, must be signed.
Ace Art Co., Inc., B-202353, Apr. 1, 1981, 81-1
CPD Para. 252.
Although the nature of the signature may vary, see, e.g.,
48 Comp.Gen. 648 (1969), it must be recognized as sufficient to bind the
bidder if the bid is accepted.
Jonard Indus.
Corp., B-192979, Jan. 30,
1979, 79-1 CPD Para. 65.
The regulations recognize the use of typewritten
and rubber-stamp signatures, but only if the bidder, prior to bid opening,
has authorized the use of such signatures and submits evidence of such
authorization.
See Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 14.405
(FAC 84-53); Ace Art Co., Inc., supra. AEI's bid was rejected because its
bid was not accompanied by any evidence showing that the use of the
rubber-stamp signature had been authorized.
Under these circumstances,
rejection of the bid was proper.
See Inge Ellefson, B-212785, Sept. 2,
1983, 83-2 CPD Para. 303.

We dismiss the protest.