A firm requested a reconsideration of an earlier GAO decision dismissing the protest of a contract award. The awardee and another bidder had the same business address and shared common officers and directors, and their bids contained identical prices for numerous items, which the protester cited as evidence that the firms falsely certified that their prices were arrived at independently. The protester requested that GAO investigate the bids of the awardee and the other firm, but GAO was not authorized to conduct investigations under its bid protest procedures. GAO found that: (1) the fact that the two bidders had the same address and common officers did not prove that they conspired to set prices or restrict competition; and (2) the allegation that two bidders have jointly prepared and submitted bids does not constitute collusive bidding or show that the bidders tried to eliminate competition from other companies. Further, setting prices or restricting competition by inducing others not to bid is a criminal offense and is not under GAO jurisdiction. Multiple bids need not be rejected as long as the bidding was not prejudicial to the United States or other bidders. The protester did not establish that the prior decision was based on an error in fact or law. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.
Skip to Highlights