G & J Small Construction, Inc., B-286716, February 5, 2001

B-286716 Feb 05, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST A bid containing signatures of the president that differed in appearance was improperly rejected where the agency failed to consider the post-bid-opening explanation of the bidder regarding who had signed the bid and why the signatures were different. Which should have removed any concern about the signatures. The apparent low bid was rejected as nonresponsive. G & J's bid was second low. Although three of the signatures were identical. The signature on line 30B of the SF 1442 was noticeably different. " the bid submitted by G & J was nonresponsive. The president of G & J responded shortly thereafter with a letter stating that "I readily admit that the signature on block 30-B is not mine.". View Decision Matter of: G & J Small Construction, Inc. File: B-286716 Date: February 5, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION G & J Small Construction, Inc protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTFH70-00-B-00017, issued by the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, for the construction of various sites along State Route 410 in Washington. We sustain the protest. The IFB, issued on September 8, 2000, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for the construction work. The agency received seven bids, including G & J's, by bid opening on October 11. The apparent low bid was rejected as nonresponsive; G & J's bid was second low. The president of G & J had purportedly signed G & J's bid in three places--lines 20B and 30B of the IFB's standard form (SF) 1442 and amendment No. A001 to the IFB--and had signed the bid bond submitted with the bid. Agency Report, Tab 5, G & J's Bid. The contracting officer found in reviewing the bid that, although three of the signatures were identical, the signature on line 30B of the SF 1442 was noticeably different. Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts. The contracting officer determined that, because of the "discrepancy in the signatures," the bid submitted by G & J was nonresponsive. Id. The contracting officer informed G & J of this by letter dated October 20, stating that "[t]he apparent forgery creates an uncertainty as to whether the documents show your intent to be bound as of the time of bid opening." Agency Report, Tab 8, Contracting Officer's Letter to G & J. The president of G & J responded shortly thereafter with a letter stating that "I readily admit that the signature on block 30-B is not mine." The letter explained that the individual who had brought the bid to the bid opening noticed that the president had not signed block 30B of the bid's SF 1442, and telephoned the president to discuss what to do. The letter states here that the president informed the individual that, because he had power-of-attorney to sign for the president, "he could sign [the president's] name on [the] contract." This letter was accompanied by a copy of the power-of-attorney and a statement from the president that the signatures "guarantee my intent to be bound to the contract." Agency Report, Tab 8, G & J Letter to Contracting Officer (Oct. 24, 2000). The contracting officer considered the letter and its attachments, and determined that G & J's bid was nonresponsive. In her letter to G & J, the contracting officer noted that the individual who had signed the president's name was authorized in the power-of-attorney submitted by G & J to enter into contracts on G & J's behalf, and by the solicitation mailing list application (SF 129) that G & J had submitted in September, which had specifically listed the individual (and the president) as "authorized to sign offers and contracts" in G & J's name. The contracting officer concluded, however, that the "possible forgery" on line 30B of G & J's bid "called into question the integrity of the total package." Agency Report, Tab 8, Contracting Officer's Letter to G & J (Oct. 26, 2000). The contracting officer reasoned that, although the protester's October 24 letter "helps to explain the two signatures on the bid form . . . the validity of each bid must be capable of determination from the bid documents themselves at the time of bid opening," and that accordingly, she was precluded from considering G & J's post-bid-opening explanation. Id; Agency Report at 3. The protester argues that the contracting officer acted improperly in rejecting G & J's bid without inquiry, and points out that the individual who signed the president's name is authorized to sign bids on G & J's behalf. The protester adds that in any event, because the president had signed the bid herself in two places, there is no question as to G & J's intent to be bound by its bid, nor is there any question as to whether G & J is legally bound to perform the contract in accordance with its bid. Evidence required to show the authority of an individual signing a bid may be presented after bid opening. FMS Corp., B-228201, Sept.