Jay Jackson & Associates

B-271236.3 Sep 10, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights JJA asserts that its bid was improperly rejected on the basis that its proposed individual bid bond surety was unacceptable. [1] We deny the protest. Bids were opened on December 14. The low bid submitted by Schuck Development Company was rejected as nonresponsive. " which was described as "lode mining claims.". Also included was a report from Land Title Company of Grant County which listed various encumbrances. Which were attached to the property. Was speculative and unacceptable. The protester was notified of these deficiencies in a letter which it received on January 26. Was requested to provide corrections within 5 days after receipt. The protester was also advised that assets could be substituted. View Decision Matter of: Jay Jackson & Associates File: B-271236.3 Date: September 10, 1996 Where bidder failed, after being given repeated opportunities, to furnish documentation which adequately supported the acceptability of proposed individual surety, the agency reasonably found the surety unacceptable and properly rejected the bid. Attorneys DECISION Jay Jackson & Associates (JJA) protests the rejection of its bid and the award of a contract to Harvest Construction Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. R3-12-96-04, issued by the Department of Agriculture for the construction of a road at Simpson Lake. JJA asserts that its bid was improperly rejected on the basis that its proposed individual bid bond surety was unacceptable. [1] We deny the protest. The IFB required that bidders submit a bid bond in an amount equal to 20 percent of the bid price. Bids were opened on December 14, 1995. The low bid submitted by Schuck Development Company was rejected as nonresponsive. JJA, the second low bidder, submitted a bid bond in the amount of $61,750 executed by an individual surety, Jason Jackson. As required, the bid contained a completed Affidavit of Individual Surety (Standard Form (SF) 28) on which the surety listed as assets pledged to the government in support of the bond a "lien on real estate," which was described as "lode mining claims." Also included was a report from Land Title Company of Grant County which listed various encumbrances, judgments and state, federal, and city tax liens, which were attached to the property. In reviewing the documents attached to Mr. Jackson's SF 28, the contracting officer questioned, among other things, whether the asset pledged, entitled The Dixie Meadow Group Mining Claims, was speculative and unacceptable, the failure of JJA to provide evidence of title in the form of a certificate of title prepared by a title insurance company approved by the Department of Justice, the lack of evidence of the amounts due under the listed encumbrances and liens, and the failure to provide a current real estate tax assessment of the property or a current appraisal by a professional appraiser. The protester was notified of these deficiencies in a letter which it received on January 26, 1996, and was requested to provide corrections within 5 days after receipt. The protester was also advised that assets could be substituted, but that he could not provide a substitute surety. Rather than attempting to remedy the deficiencies, on February 5, the protester requested that the bid bond requirement be waived in return for its promise to provide corporate payment and performance bonds after the contract was awarded. The protester was advised that noncompliance with the bid bond requirement of the IFB could not be waived. Thereupon, in an attempt to correct the deficiencies, the protester provided various individual releases, property tax records, and more preliminary reports and lot book service reports from Land Title Company of Grant County, Ticor Title, and Chicago Title (a company approved by the Department of Justice). The information on these reports was substantially the same as that which had been previously provided, and the reports did not show the release of all of the numerous liens and encumbrances. The protester was notified by letter dated February 8, that its bid bond was unacceptable. Thereupon, the protester submitted additional evidence of title from Chicago Title.