The agency had a hard time discerning a signature in the awardee’s bid. The protester said the agency should’ve rejected the bid. GAO said the bid was acceptable. The signature, which was in light blue-ink, was faint, but still discernible.
Daniels Building Company, Inc., GAO B-421680
- Signature Issue – The agency held a bid opening. The contracting officer attended the bid opening via a video call. The CO rejected the lowest bid because it appeared the bidder had not signed a limitation on subcontracting certificate. But the CO had only reviewed a scanned copy of the certificate during the video call. After reviewing the physical document, the CO determined the bidder had signed the certificate. The signature was very faint due to the light blue ink. The agency ultimately awarded the contract to the lowest bidder.
- Signature Was Acceptable – A disappointed bidder protested, arguing the agency should’ve rejected the bid as nonresponsive due to the signature. GAO wasn’t persuaded. A hand-written mark will count as a signature where it can be traced the individual making it. Here, the certificate had a discernible handwritten mark in the signature line. That mark was comparable to the signor’s other signatures in the bid.
The protester is represented by Marcus R. Sanborn of Blevins Sanborn Jezdimir Zack PLC. The intervenor is represented by Samuel S. Finnerty, Peter B. Ford, and Daniel J. Figuenick of PilieroMazza PLLC. The agency is represented by Deborah K. Morrell of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Anh-Thi H. Le and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance
