Eagle Vision

B-272222 Sep 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest of agency's rejection of bid due to defective bid bond is dismissed as untimely where initial agency-level protest was untimely filed. General Accounting Office will not consider protest that procurement should have been restricted to Indian firms absent a clear showing of an abuse of the broad discretion conferred by the act. The protester contends that its bid was improperly rejected based on the unacceptability of its proposed individual bid bond surety. The IFB was issued on October 26. Three bids were received by the December 12 bid opening. One bid was disqualified because the bidder was not Indian-owned. Eagle Vision's low bid was rejected because of agency concerns about the acceptability of its individual surety supporting the bid bond. View Decision Matter of: Eagle Vision File: B-272222 Date: September 3, 1996 Protest of agency's rejection of bid due to defective bid bond is dismissed as untimely where initial agency-level protest was untimely filed. Because Buy Indian Act does not require that particular contracts be set aside for exclusive participation of Indian firms, General Accounting Office will not consider protest that procurement should have been restricted to Indian firms absent a clear showing of an abuse of the broad discretion conferred by the act. Attorneys DECISION Eagle Vision protests the cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. 102-IFB-95-0037, issued as a total set-aside for Indian-owned and controlled concerns by the Department of Health and Human Services. The protester contends that its bid was improperly rejected based on the unacceptability of its proposed individual bid bond surety, and objects to the resolicitation of the requirement on an unrestricted basis. We dismiss the protest. The IFB was issued on October 26, 1995, as a total set-aside for Indian- owned and controlled concerns pursuant to the Buy Indian Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 47 (1994). Three bids were received by the December 12 bid opening. One bid was disqualified because the bidder was not Indian-owned. Eagle Vision's low bid was rejected because of agency concerns about the acceptability of its individual surety supporting the bid bond. The only remaining responsive bid was determined to be unreasonably high. On January 24, 1996, the procurement was converted to negotiated in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 14.404-1(e)(1). On February 6, offers were requested from Eagle Vision and Gordon Construction, the two qualified Indian-owned firms that had bid under the original IFB. Only Eagle Vision submitted an offer by the February 21 closing date for receipt of proposals. By letter dated March 5, Eagle Vision was advised that there were deficiencies with its individual surety that needed to be corrected. Eagle Vision attempted to clarify the matter and to ameliorate the deficiencies, but by letter of March 13, the contracting officer advised Eagle Vision that its response did not satisfy the agency's concerns regarding the acceptability of the individual sureties. Eagle Vision was requested to provide a best and final offer (BAFO) by March 22, with a new and acceptable bid bond. By letter dated March 22, Eagle Vision advised the contracting officer that a new bid bond had been ordered and that it would be forwarded shortly. On March 22, the agency received Eagle Vision's BAFO, but it did not include a new bid bond. Eagle Vision stated in its BAFO that it had ordered a new bid bond and expected to receive it shortly. The promised new bid bond was not provided and, on March 28, Eagle Vision was informed that its offer was rejected because of the unacceptability of the individual surety. That letter also advised Eagle Vision that the requirement would be reprocured on an unrestricted basis and that the resolicitation would be advertised in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). The advertisement for the new solicitation appeared in the CBD on April 18. On April 15, the agency sent Eagle Vision a copy of the presolicitation notice for the new solicitation and on May 13, the protester was sent a copy of the new solicitation. Bid opening under the new solicitation was set for June 13. On May 28, Eagle Vision protested to the contracting officer objecting to the rejection of its offer and the resolicitation of the requirement on an unrestricted basis. The agency denied the protest on June 5, finding that the protest was untimely to the extent it concerned the unacceptability of Eagle Vision's individual surety.