BNUMBER:  B-270756
DATE:  April 18, 1996
TITLE:  Tri-Ark Industries, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Tri-Ark Industries, Inc.

File:     B-270756

Date:April 18, 1996

Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protester.
Deidre A. Lee, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the 
agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where the individual signing the bid clearly has the authority to 
bind the bidder to the terms of the solicitation, the actual title 
accompanying the signature is immaterial.

2.  Bid is not materially unbalanced absent any reasonable doubt that 
acceptance of the bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the 
government.

DECISION

Tri-Ark Industries, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tolman 
Building Maintenance, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
9-BJ3-T11-5-16B, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) for custodial services.  Tri-Ark alleges various 
irregularities in the Tolman bid.

We deny the protest.

On October 5, 1995, NASA issued the IFB for a firm, fixed-price 
contract to provide custodial support services at the Lyndon B. 
Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, for a base period of 10 
months, with two 1-year option periods.  The IFB provided for award on 
the basis of low price, including options.

Tolman submitted the lowest of 15 bids on November 30.  Tri-Ark, which 
submitted the second low bid, filed this protest against award to 
Tolman with our Office on December 15.

Tri-Ark contends that the Tolman bid is nonresponsive because, the 
protester alleges, both the bid and the accompanying certificate of 
procurement integrity may have been improperly executed.  
Specifically, Tri-Ark asserts that the individual who signed Tolman's 
bid as president is actually the firm's secretary.  Further, the line 
on the certificate of procurement integrity on which the name of the 
person providing the certification is to be inserted was not 
completed, and, Tri-Ark alleges, the signature on the certificate is 
illegible.

We have long recognized that bidders may submit evidence establishing 
the authority of an individual to sign a bid after bid opening.  49 
Comp. Gen. 527 (1970).  Here, in response to the agency's inquiry, the 
bidder provided a letter confirming the authority of the individual 
who signed the bid to bind the corporation.  That individual served as 
president of the corporation until November 6, shortly before 
preparation of the bid; he is now chairman of the board and secretary.  
Where, as here, the individual signing the bid clearly has the 
authority to bind the bidder to the terms of the solicitation, the 
actual title accompanying the signature is immaterial.  See Best 
Western Conference Ctr., B-255425, Feb. 28, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  156.

Next, the agency states it found nothing irregular about the signature 
affixed to the certificate of procurement integrity.  We have examined 
the signature and while it is not a model of clarity, we see no basis 
to question its authenticity.  Further, omission of the name of the 
individual providing the certification from the first paragraph of the 
clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  52.203-8 does not render 
the certification invalid where, as here, the bidder has properly 
inserted the name and signature of that individual in the last 
paragraph.  Woodington Corp., B-244579.2, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  
393.  The agency has verified that the signature on the certificate is 
in fact the signature of the individual whose name appears, and we see 
nothing improper in the agency's acceptance of the certificate as 
submitted with the bid.

Tri-Ark also asserts that the bid bond accompanying the bid "may be 
invalid."  Tri-Ark states that because the bid bond is dated November 
14, before the issuance of amendment No. 5 to the IFB on November 17, 
Tri-Ark should have had its bonding agency verify that the bond 
applied to the IFB as amended.  Tri-Ark cites no applicable law for 
this proposition and we are aware of no requirement that a bid bond be 
"verified" as Tri-Ark suggests.[1]  Since the bid bond otherwise was 
in order, the fact that it was executed before issuance of an 
amendment to the IFB does not affect its validity.[2] 

Tri-Ark also contends that Tolman's bid is unbalanced because its 
monthly price for the base period is higher than the monthly price for 
the option years.  Tolman's monthly price was $173,795.50 a month for 
the base period and $156,417.50 a month for the 2 option years.

An examination of bid unbalancing has two aspects.  First, the bid 
must be evaluated mathematically to determine whether each item 
carries its share of the cost of the work, plus overhead and profit.  
The second aspect--material unbalancing--involves an assessment of the 
cost impact of a mathematically unbalanced bid.  Rust Int'l Corp.; ABB 
Susa, Inc./Brown & Root, a Joint Venture, B-256886.2 et al., Aug. 30, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  84.  Even where a bid is mathematically unbalanced, 
it should not be rejected where there is no reasonable doubt that 
award to the bidder submitting the allegedly unbalanced bid will 
result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government.  Id.  Here, 
Tolman's bid becomes low in the second month of the first option year.  
The agency states that it intends to exercise the option, and there is 
nothing in the record to support a reasonable doubt that award to 
Tolman will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government.  
Accordingly, even if the bid were mathematically unbalanced, there 
would be no basis to reject the bid as materially unbalanced. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The case Tri-Ark cites, Weber Constr., B-233848, Mar. 27, 1989, 
89-1 CPD  para.  309, is inapposite as it involved an agency's rejection of 
a bid where the bidder failed to submit the Standard Form 1442 and 
therefore failed to commit itself to the material requirements of the 
IFB.

2. In its comments on the agency report, the protester questions 
whether Tolman acknowledged receipt of amendment No. 5.  As indicated 
on the cover page of its bid, a copy of which was included in the 
agency report, Tolman acknowledged all the amendments to the IFB.