Skip to Highlights

A firm protested the Navy's rejection of its bids for construction work, contending that: (1) the Navy improperly found its letter of credit unacceptable, since it submitted additional information concerning its surety's financial status; (2) its letter of credit was enforceable as a bid guarantee; and (3) another agency accepted a similar letter of credit from the same surety under another solicitation. GAO held that the Navy: (1) properly found the protester's letter of credit unacceptable, since the protester did not provide sufficient information regarding its surety's financial responsibility; (2) reasonably determined that the letter of credit was unenforceable; and (3) was not required to accept the protester's letter of credit simply because another agency had done so. Accordingly, the protests were denied.