Jay-Brant General Contractors

B-274986 Jan 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bid found to include only a photocopy of the required bid bond was properly rejected as nonresponsive where the protester has not provided independent evidence to support its assertion that the original bond was included with its bid package submitted to the agency prior to bid opening and has not persuasively shown that the agency inadvertently substituted a photocopy of the original bind bond after bid opening. Which it alleges was photocopied and then apparently misplaced by the agency after bid opening. No representative from Jay-Brant attended the bid opening (although the protester has provided affidavits from representatives of two other bidders who did attend). [1] Jay-Brant's bid was the first to be opened and the bid opening official announced that Jay-Brant's bid bond was in the correct amount (20 percent). View Decision Matter of: Jay-Brant General Contractors File: B-274986 Date: January 10, 1997 Bid found to include only a photocopy of the required bid bond was properly rejected as nonresponsive where the protester has not provided independent evidence to support its assertion that the original bond was included with its bid package submitted to the agency prior to bid opening and has not persuasively shown that the agency inadvertently substituted a photocopy of the original bind bond after bid opening. Attorneys DECISION Jay-Brant General Contractors protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAHC76-96-B-0016, issued by the Department of the Army, Fort Richardson, Alaska, for the replacement of heating systems in family housing at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The Army rejected Jay-Brant's bid as nonresponsive because the bidder submitted a photocopy of the required bid bond with its bid. The protester contends that its bid in fact included an original bid bond, which it alleges was photocopied and then apparently misplaced by the agency after bid opening. We deny the protest. The IFB required bidders to submit with their bids a bid bond in the amount of 20 percent of the bid price. The Army received seven bids by bid opening on September 19. No representative from Jay-Brant attended the bid opening (although the protester has provided affidavits from representatives of two other bidders who did attend). [1] Jay-Brant's bid was the first to be opened and the bid opening official announced that Jay-Brant's bid bond was in the correct amount (20 percent). The official did not comment about the absence of an original bid bond or state there were any problems with Jay-Brant's bid, either to those in attendance or on the abstract of offers. After reviewing Jay-Brant's bid, the bid opening official returned the contents of Jay-Brant's bid to its original envelope, and proceeded with the opening of the other six bids. There is no indication that any of the bidders examined Jay-Brant's bid at bid opening. Although Jay-Brant submitted the apparent low bid, the Army rejected Jay- Brant's bid as nonresponsive on September 25 and awarded the contract to Western Mechanical, Inc.--the second low bidder--because, according to the Army's review, Jay-Brant failed to submit an original bid bond (with all seals affixed) with its bid. Rather, the Army found that Jay-Brant's bid only included a photocopy of the bid bond consisting of a completed front page of a Standard Form 24 bid bond--the reverse side was not duplicated-- and a photocopy of a power of attorney from Jay-Brant's surety. Jay-Brant was notified that the agency rejected its bid as nonresponsive on October 1. This protest followed. The protester expressly denies having made the photocopy of its bid bond now in the bid file at the contracting office and attests that it included the original bid bond in its bid. Jay-Brant asserts that the contracting office must have made a photocopy and somehow misplaced the original. As evidence, the protester has provided an affidavit from the employee responsible for preparing the bid in which he states he included an original bid bond with Jay-Brant's bid and that it is his firm's standard office practice not to make copies of bid bonds. The protester points out that the bid opening official completed and certified the abstract of offers showing that Jay-Brant had submitted the required 20-percent bid bond and that a photocopied bid bond should have been readily apparent to the bid opening officials, and announced and recorded. [2] The protester states that following bid opening, Jay-Brant representatives contacted agency contracting officials several times about the status of contract award and were not informed that there was a problem with the bid bond but that the award was being processed.