BNUMBER:  B-272267
DATE:  August 29, 1996
TITLE:  Peter J. O'Brien & Company

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

Matter of:Peter J. O'Brien & Company

File:     B-272267

Date:August 29, 1996

Joseph J. Griseta, Esq., Simon & Spitalli, for the protester.
Phillipa Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the 
agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

An unsigned Standard Form 1442 does not render a bid nonresponsive 
where the bid is accompanied by an executed certificate of procurement 
integrity and a signed bid bond that refers to and clearly identifies 
the bid.  

DECISION

Peter J. O'Brien & Company protests the acceptance of the bid 
submitted by Chicagoland Paving Inc. on Department of Veterans Affairs 
invitation for bids (IFB) No. 578-12-96.  O'Brien contends that the 
bid should have been rejected because it was not signed when the bid 
was opened at the public bid opening.

We deny the protest.

Bids submitted in response to the IFB were opened on May 8, 1996.  At 
the bid opening, the contracting officer noted that the first page, 
Standard Form (SF) 1442 ("Solicitation, Offer, and Award"), of 
Chicagoland's bid was not signed and dated by the bidder.  The 
contracting officer, however, concluded that this omission constituted 
a correctable minor informality since the procurement integrity  
certification and bid bond both were signed by "Wm. R. Bowes" on 
behalf of the company.  The contracting officer requested the bidder's 
representative in attendance at the bid opening to sign the bid.[1]  

In general, a bid that is not signed must be rejected as nonresponsive 
because, without an appropriate signature, the bidder would not be 
bound to perform once the government accepted the bid.  Stafford 
Grading and Paving Co., Inc., B-245907, 
Jan. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  66.  However, there are certain situations 
where the bidder's failure to sign its bid may be corrected or waived 
as a minor informality.  For example, such a waiver is proper where 
the bid was accompanied by other material--such as a signed bid 
guarantee that refers to and clearly identifies the bid--indicating 
the bidder's intention to be bound.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  
14.405(c)(1); Micon Corp., B-249231, Oct. 28, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  293.  
This intention to be bound may also be shown when the bid contains a 
properly signed bid bond specifically referencing the solicitation 
involved and a properly signed certificate of procurement integrity.  
Southern Technologies Inc., B-256190, May 23, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  321.

Here, Wm R. Bowes, as the officer/employee responsible for the 
preparation of the bid, signed the certificate of procurement 
integrity and the bid bond.  The certification and bid bond which were 
part of Chicagoland's bid specifically referenced this IFB.  
Accordingly, since Chicagoland's intent to be bound is ascertainable 
from its bid, the failure to sign SF 1442 may be waived, and award to 
Chicagoland is proper.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States     

1. The protester alleges that the signature of Wm. R. Bowes on the SF 
1442 does not match the signature on the certification and bond.  
While the agency does not identify the representative who attended the 
bid opening and subsequently signed the SF 1442, it appears that it 
was not Wm. R. Bowes and that the company representative merely signed 
"William Bowes" on the SF 1442, rather than his own name.  However, as 
discussed in this decision, this later signature has no legal 
significance since the original bid contained Wm. R. Bowes's signature 
on the procurement integrity certification and bid bond.  The 
authenticity of these signatures is not at issue.