Dick Enterprises, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration

B-259686.3 Nov 16, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights GAO finds that original award decision was proper. Was unclear regarding which of numerous corporate entities identified in the proposal was the actual offeror. Because there was no information to show that the individual signing the offer had authority to execute contracts on behalf of the companies named. We specifically noted that d/b/a is generally employed where the same legal entity is merely using another name as its trade name. That Walsh and Archer-Western were distinct corporations. That they were not necessarily liable for each other's obligations. That there was no information to show. That Walsh was the actual offeror and was merely using Archer-Western as its trade name. There was doubt regarding the enforceability of the bid bond submitted with Walsh's bid. View Decision Matter of: Dick Enterprises, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration File: B-259686.3 Date: November 16, 1995 Where General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended in prior decision that awardee provide information to resolve ambiguity relating to the identity of the offering concern, and information provided resolves ambiguity, GAO finds that original award decision was proper. Attorneys DECISION Dick Enterprises, Inc. protests the actions of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in failing to terminate for the convenience of the government a contract awarded to The Walsh Group, Ltd. d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH71-94-R-00006, issued by the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (DOT) for the construction of a tunnel and portal buildings at Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. Dick also requests reconsideration of our decision in Dick Enters., Inc., B-259686.2, June 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD Para. 286, in which we sustained an earlier protest by Dick against the contract award to Walsh. We deny the protest and the request for reconsideration. In our first decision, we found that Walsh's proposal, submitted in the name of The Walsh Group, Ltd. d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd., was unclear regarding which of numerous corporate entities identified in the proposal was the actual offeror, and because there was no information to show that the individual signing the offer had authority to execute contracts on behalf of the companies named. We specifically noted that d/b/a is generally employed where the same legal entity is merely using another name as its trade name. We found, however, that Walsh and Archer-Western were distinct corporations, that they were not necessarily liable for each other's obligations, and that there was no information to show, for example, that Walsh was the actual offeror and was merely using Archer-Western as its trade name. We also found no evidence to show that there existed a distinct legal entity known as The Walsh Group d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors. Finally, we found that, because of these infirmities, there was doubt regarding the enforceability of the bid bond submitted with Walsh's bid. We therefore sustained the protest and recommended that DOT expeditiously obtain information to establish the identity of the offering entity and the authority of the individual signing the offer to bind the firm; we further recommended that, if the information provided was inadequate, DOT terminate the contract awarded to Walsh for the convenience of the government, and make award to Dick if otherwise proper. In response to our recommendation, the agency has obtained various documents from Walsh. This information includes copies of the articles of incorporation for The Walsh Group, Ltd. and Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd., as well as the minutes from the two companies' boards of directors' annual meetings and authenticated copies of various motions of the boards dated January 10, 1994. This information shows, among other things, that (as represented in the original protest record) Archer-Western is a subsidiary of The Walsh Group, and that The Walsh Group assumed all liabilities of Archer-Western prior to the original deadline for submission of offers. As an initial matter, Dick argues in its reconsideration request that our original decision was erroneous in that it permitted Walsh to furnish information after award regarding the identity of the offeror and authority of the individual signing the offer to bind the concern. Since our decision was based on the fact that the record contained insufficient information concerning which of several named entities was the offeror, the appropriate remedy--notwithstanding that award had been made--was to determine whether there was information that the agency could have obtained that would sufficiently clarify the relationships between the various entities.