HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadddf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION OF THE UNITED TATES
VWASHINGTON, D. C. 20548
FILE: B-186180 DATE: June 17, 1976
MATTER OF: James E. McFadden, Inc.
DIGEST:
Protest based upon allegation that failure of low bidder
to submit construction progress schedule with bid, as
required by IFB, is matter of bid responsiveness is
denied in light of GAO precedent holding similar fail-
ure to be matter of bidder responsibility and may be
furnished subsequent to bid opening.
By telegram dated March 25, 1976, counsel for James E.
McFadden, Inc. (McFadden), protested award to any other bidder
pursuant to invitation for bids (IFB) BM-P-76-28 issued on
February 4, 1976, by the United States Mint, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for construction of a new entrance and exit and
renovation of adjacent interior areas of the Philadelphia Mint.
At bid opening on March 17, 1976, the following three bids, were
received: Brandolini Corp. (Brandolini), $62,000; McFadden,
$67,000; and Enrico Roman, Inc., $97,913.
The basis for McFadden's protest is Brandolini's failure to
submit a schedule of construction progress to co: pletion as re-
quired by amendment 2 to the solicitation, issued >arch 3, 1976.
Counsel for McFadden urges that thc failure to submit the required
schedule renders McFadden's bid nonrzsponsive.
The contracting agency advise; that t rpose of the
chart [progress schedule] was to a :re bidder had
properly planned the work to assure I mplt hin the re-
quired completion schedule * * * :not 0o the bidder to
the completion dates proposed in ti, schedul . In view of the
purpose of the schedule and in vie:.- Cf the ' <datory date for
completion of the project (70 days from notice to proceed) con-
tained in the IFB, the contracting agency urgcs that Brandolini's
failure to include the schedule is a matter of bidder responsibility
rather than bid responsiveness. Thus, the question before us is
whether Brandolini's failure to include the required schedule goes
to the matter of bid responsiveness or bidder responsibility. Award
of the contract is being withheld pending our decision in this matter.
- 1 -](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadddf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)