Protest Against IFB Requirements

A firm protested the requirement for performance and payment bonds in an invitation for bids (IFB) process. The IFB was issued by the U.S. Army Missile Command for maintenance, repair and custodial service at an Army hospital. The protester, which did not bid, requested delay of bid opening or, in the alternative, delay of contract award until the protest was resolved. The Army decided to award the contract to a joint venture despite the pending protest. As a result, the protester filed further protests contending that: (1) the awarding of a contract when there was a protest pending against that award was improper; and (2) the award to the contractor was contrary to the criteria set forth in the IFB. It was the protester's contention that the bond requirements did not, in this case, apply to them. Further, the protester contended that the awardee did not have the minimum experience requirements necessary for the contract. GAO reviewed the record and found that the performance bond requirement was necessary since default might result in serious medical risks having financial consequences. Furthermore, GAO held that, since the performance bond requirement could not be questioned, the payment bond requirement was not legally objectionable. GAO found that the Army's decision to award the contract, despite the pending protest, was proper. GAO held that the Army used the proper requirements in determining whether or not the proposed awardee met the solicitation's specifications.