Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc., B-292992, December 8, 2003

B-292992 Dec 08, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency reasonably found protester's proposal unacceptable where protester's purported individual surety bid bond contained an ambiguity as to the identity of the surety and where the bond was not accompanied by Standard Form 28. The Corps rejected Horizon's proposal on the ground that the firm's bid guarantee was unacceptable. Was acceptable in all respects and alternatively argues that if the agency had any concerns about the bid guarantee. The agency should have provided protester with an opportunity to address any perceived deficiency. The protest is denied. Offerors choosing to obtain bonding were required to furnish with their proposals a bid guarantee in the lesser amount of 20 percent of the offeror's proposed contract price or $3 million.See RFP. View Decision Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc., B-292992, December 8, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Marine Builders, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACW61-03-R-0029, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for an inland river towboat. The Corps rejected Horizon's proposal on the ground that the firm's bid guarantee was unacceptable. The protester principally asserts that its bid guarantee, in the form of a bid bond with an individual surety, was acceptable in all respects and alternatively argues that if the agency had any concerns about the bid guarantee, the agency should have provided protester with an opportunity to address any perceived deficiency. The protest is denied. In order to minimize financial risk to the government, the RFP required offerors to choose between obtaining bonding and receiving progress payments for contract work or financing the contract independently and waiting until after delivery and acceptance to receive complete payment. See RFP Sec. L, at 14. Offerors choosing to obtain bonding were required to furnish with their proposals a bid guarantee in the lesser amount of 20 percent of the offeror's proposed contract price or $3 million.See RFP, amends. 1 and 2 (incorporating Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee, and modifying the bid guarantee amount, respectively). /1/ The RFP instructed offerors to "furnish a bid guarantee in the form of a firm commitment (e.g,. a bid bond)" and warned that the "[f]ailure to furnish a bid guarantee in the proper form and amount, by the time set for opening of bids, may be cause for rejection of the bid." RFP, amend. 2. The RFP also incorporated FAR Sec. 52.228-11, Pledges of Assets, requiring offerors that use an individual surety on a bid guarantee to obtain from the individual surety a "pledge of assets" and "Standard Form 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety." By the August 20, 2003 closing date, the agency had received a proposal from Horizon, as well as several other firms. /2/ In its proposal, Horizon elected to obtain bonding and receive progress payments and therefore submitted a bid guarantee with its proposal in the form of a standard form (SF) 24 bid bond. /3/ The surety was listed on Horizon's SF 24 as follows: "Global Bonding (Atty.-In-Fact for Robert Joe Hanson)." The signature "Robert Joe Hanson" appeared under the "Individual Surety(ies)" signature block; the typed name under the signature block appeared as follows: "Robert Joe Hanson, sec." Horizon's bid guarantee did not include SF 28, Affidavit of Individual Surety, but instead included a document captioned "Power of Attorney." /4/ This power of attorney was signed "Robert Joe Hanson, Attorney-in-Fact, Global Bonding" and identified "Global Bonding" as "attorney in fact" for Robert Joe Hanson. The power of attorney also contained a representation of assets identified as "Corporate Financial Debenture Note #2003-1, $50,000,000.000 Hexagon Consolidated Companies of America." In addition, Horizon's bid bond included a document identifying Hexagon Consolidated Companies of America as a "guarantor" pledging $50 million in the form of "Corporate Debenture Number Two Thousand Three dash One (2003-1), to back Global Bonding . . . Attorney in Fact for Robert Joe Hanson . . . ." Upon evaluation of the proposals, the agency decided to make award, without holding discussions, /5/ to Marine Builders, Inc. in the amount of $1,572,385. After learning of the agency's decision, Horizon requested a debriefing, which the agency provided, in writing, on October 1. In Horizon's debriefing letter, the contracting officer indicated that Horizon's proposal was rejected because its individual surety bid bond was determined to be unacceptable. Horizon protests the rejection of its proposal based on the agency's determination that its bid bond was unacceptable.