[Protest of Navy Rejection of Bid for Alarm Installation]

A firm protested the Navy's rejection of its bid as nonresponsive for alarm installation, contending that: (1) although its power-of-attorney form failed to designate the individual who signed the bid bond on behalf of the corporate surety as an attorney-in-fact authorized to bind the surety, the individual signed the bid bond on behalf of the corporate surety and the signature was notarized; and (2) its failure to list the individual on the power-of-attorney form was unintentional and should be curable after bid opening. GAO held that the Navy properly rejected the protester's bid as defective, since it was not clear at the time of bid opening that the surety would be bound. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.