B-227640, Sep 8, 1987, 87-2 CPD 226
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bid guarantees - Responsiveness - Minor deviations - Time/date notations DIGEST: The omission of the date of execution of a bond on the bid bond form is a waivable minor informality since other information provided on form clearly establishes liability of the surety on the bond and government obtains same protection as it would under a bond including its date of execution. Is nonresponsive because the block for the date of execution of the bid bond by Westminster was blank. The sole issue in this case is whether the absence of the execution date by the principal on the bond is a deficiency that detracts from the liability of the surety. Since the bond was complete in every other respect.
B-227640, Sep 8, 1987, 87-2 CPD 226
PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Bid guarantees - Responsiveness - Minor deviations - Time/date notations DIGEST: The omission of the date of execution of a bond on the bid bond form is a waivable minor informality since other information provided on form clearly establishes liability of the surety on the bond and government obtains same protection as it would under a bond including its date of execution.
C Construction Co., Inc.:
C Construction Co., Inc., protests the award of a contract to Westminster Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62470-87-B-7229 issued by the Department of the Navy. C Construction contends that the bid of the low bidder, Westminster Company, is nonresponsive because the block for the date of execution of the bid bond by Westminster was blank.
We deny the protest.
The sole issue in this case is whether the absence of the execution date by the principal on the bond is a deficiency that detracts from the liability of the surety, since the bond was complete in every other respect, including the date of execution by the surety, the amount, the solicitation number and the bid opening date. See Brener Building Maintenance company, Inc., B-219682, Oct. 28, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 475.
The protester has not suggested in what respect the liability of the surety is diminished by the absence of the execution date of the bond the principal-- its argument rests on the language of the printed form-- that the execution date "must not be later than the bid opening date." find no merit to this argument, because it is clear that the bond was signed by the bidder before bid opening because it was complete at the
time bids were opened.
The deviation here is therefore one of form that
has no substantive effect on the liability of the surety.
A deviation in
form and not of substance is a minor informality that can and should be
waived, since the government should not be deprived of the benefit of a
lower priced bid because of a meaningless mistake.
Federal Acquisition
Regulation, 48 C.F.R. sec. 14.405 (1986).
The protest is denied.