Ken Baughman
| Decision Date | 26 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | B-215187 |
| Parties | KEN BAUGHMAN: No. 84-2 CPD 699 |
| Court | Comptroller General of the United States |
Funds - nonappropriated - contract awards - federal procurement and status digest: 1. Protest of procurement for the construction of a motorcycle trail in a national forest, funded by the state of Washington under an agreement with the United States forest service, is reviewable by GAO since the statute authorizing the agreement provides that such funds are to be considered appropriated. Bonds - bid - deficiencies - bid rejection 2. An agency's rejection of a bid as nonresponsible based on a finding that one of the bidder's individual sureties on his bid bond is unacceptable because his total outstanding surety obligations are in excess of his net worth is unobjectionable since it is reasonably related to the purpose for which a bid guarantee is intended, namely, to protect the government's financial interest in the event of default on the bid.
Ken baughman:
Ken baughman (baughman) protests the rejection of his low bid under invitation for bids no. R6-84-15c issued by the United States department of agriculture, forest service, for the construction of a motorcycle trail in the coville national forest, pend oreille county, Washington.
We deny the protest.
As a preliminary matter, the forest service contends that the general accounting office lacks jurisdiction to consider the protest because the procurement is being funded entirely by the department of natural resources of the state of Washington under an agreement with the United States forest service and, thus, does not involve funds directly appropriated from congress. The forest service bases its determination on our decisions in b-174324, Jan. 12, 1972 and b-146602. Nov. 13, 1961.
This office considers protests of contract awards pursuant to its authority under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3526 (1982) to adjust and settle appropriated fund accounts of the United States. The authority for the agreement between the state of Washington and the forest service provides, in pertinent part, that "all moneys received as contributions toward cooperative work in forest investigations, or the protection and improvement of the national forests, shall be covered into the treasury and shall constitute a special fund, which is appropriated and made available until expended." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 498 (1982). Thus, although the funds for this procurement are not directly appropriated by congress, they constitute appropriated funds pursuant to the statute which grants authority for the agreement between the state of Washington and the forest service. We find the decisions cited by the forest service in support of its position that we lack authority to consider this protest to be inapplicable because they concern procurements which do not involve the expenditure of appropriated funds. We also find that this office has authority to consider this protest.
Under the invitation for bids in this case, bidders were required to submit a bid bond with their bids for 20 percent of the bid price. Because baughman was bonded by individual rather than corporate sureties, a completed affidavit of individual surety (standard form 28) for each individual surety was required to accompany the bond. The contracting officer found baughman's low bid to be nonresponsive based on his determination that one of the individual sureties was unacceptable. The contracting officer found the surety unacceptable based on two deficiencies in his affidavit.
First the contracting officer found the surety made an error in filling out item 7 of the affidavit which provides space for the surety to list present assets, liabilities and net worth. The surety failed to follow the instructions on the affidavit regarding the calculation of net worth. The contracting officer, finding that this error raised an ambiguity regarding the surety's net worth, recalculated net worth based on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial