BNUMBER:  B-276556; B-276556.2; B-276556.3 
DATE:  June 26, 1997
TITLE: L. Washington & Associates, Inc., B-276556; B-276556.2; B-
276556.3, June 26, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:L. Washington & Associates, Inc.

File:     B-276556; B-276556.2; B-276556.3

Date:June 26, 1997

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., for the protester.
George R. Barbosa, The Barbosa Group, Inc., an intervenor.
Scarlett Grose, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that agency unreasonably delayed award in order to allow 
awardee opportunity to apply for and obtain required license is 
dismissed where unsupported by the record.

2.  Protest that awardee's bid should have been rejected as mistaken 
where contracting agency accepted awardee's bid verification is not 
for consideration because only the contracting parties are in a 
position to assert rights and bring forth all the necessary evidence 
to resolve mistake in bid questions.  

DECISION

L. Washington & Associates, Inc. (LWA) protests the award of a 
contract to 
The Barbosa Group (Barbosa) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
GS-02P-96-CID-0012, issued by the General Services Administration 
(GSA) for armed and unarmed guard services at various locations in six 
New Jersey State counties.  The procurement was conducted 
competitively pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 
U.S.C.  sec.  637(a) (1994).  LWA argues that Barbosa's bid should have 
been rejected as nonresponsive because Barbosa did not possess a 
required New Jersey State guard license at time of bid opening, that 
GSA "indefinitely delayed" the award in order to permit Barbosa to 
obtain the required license, and that GSA was aware of a mistake in 
Barbosa's bid but failed to take appropriate action.

We dismiss the protests.

The IFB, issued on July 22, 1996, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-priced, indefinite quantity contract for a 12-month base period 
with four 12-month option periods.   The IFB required bidders to 
submit per-hour prices for both armed and unarmed guard services, with 
these prices to be multiplied by stated quantities and the results 
used to establish total aggregate price.  Award was to be made to the 
responsible bidder submitting the lowest total price.  The 
solicitation provided that the "successful bidder must obtain all New 
Jersey State Permits and Licenses prior to award of the contract."  

The agency received 16 bids by the August 27, 1996, bid opening date, 
ranging from $6,028,067.30 to $9,500,739.68.  The lowest bid was 
submitted by Sheen & Shine, Inc. (S&S); Barbosa's bid of $6,544,474.03 
was next low; and LWA's was fourth low.  The low bidder, S&S, was 
requested to verify its bid on three separate occasions and on 
December 24, S&S was allowed to withdraw its bid because of numerous 
errors it made in its estimate.  

By letter dated October 16, the agency advised Barbosa, the second low 
bidder, that a mistake in bid was suspected and requested that it 
verify its bid.  Barbosa agreed to a bid extension and by letter dated 
October 21, verified its bid.  By letter dated November 21, GSA 
informed the SBA office in Houston, Texas, that it was evaluating the 
bid submitted by Barbosa for possible award and requested the SBA to 
verify Barbosa's eligibility under the 8(a) program and to provide a 
detailed statement regarding the firm's past experience in performing 
the type of services required by the solicitation.  

Even though Barbosa had verified its bid, by letter dated November 22, 
GSA again requested Barbosa to verify the accuracy of the bid and to 
provide specified bid documentation.  By letter dated November 22, 
Barbosa provided the requested documentation and again verified its 
bid prices.  In early December, Barbosa informed GSA that the 
paperwork for the required New Jersey license had been completed and 
was being processed.  Barbosa was reminded by GSA on
December 11 about the necessity of obtaining the license prior to 
award and was further advised that when GSA was ready to make award, 
the award could not be held up to allow Barbosa time in which to 
obtain the required license.  After reviewing the documentation 
submitted by Barbosa with its second bid verification, GSA again 
requested Barbosa to verify its bid prices, which Barbosa did by 
letter dated January 9, 1997, providing specific responses to each of 
the areas of concern as identified in GSA's bid verification request.  

On January 17, GSA advised Barbosa that the worksheet for Monmouth 
County it had submitted with its bid verification letter dated 
November 22 appeared to use the wrong DOL hourly wage rate in 
calculating the prices for certain of the guards and again asked 
Barbosa to verify whether or not a mistake had been made.  On that 
same day, Barbosa advised GSA that, under any circumstances, it would 
pay the required DOL labor rates for all counties, and by letter dated 
January 17, Barbosa verified its bid prices for the fourth time.

On January 29, the agency pre-award survey resulted in a 
recommendation of award to Barbosa.  GSA requested Barbosa to submit, 
by February 7, a copy of the license which would allow it to operate 
in the State of New Jersey as a provider of security guards.  Barbosa 
requested an extension of time to provide the license stating that it 
had submitted its license application and was aggressively pursuing 
the licensing process with the State of New Jersey.  GSA stated that 
it would begin preparing the award documents and that Barbosa should 
submit a copy of its license immediately upon receipt.  On February 
24, a copy of the license was provided to GSA and on March 13, award 
was made to Barbosa.  This protest was filed with our Office on March 
20.

LWA initially protested that the IFB required offerors to have all 
necessary permits and licenses from the State of New Jersey at the 
time of bid opening and that any offeror that did not have such 
licenses should have been determined nonresponsive by GSA.  The agency 
report establishes, and LWA does not dispute, that the IFB required 
the bidder to obtain the licenses prior to award of the contract, not 
to possess them at the time of bid opening, and that Barbosa did in 
fact have its New Jersey guard license prior to being awarded the 
contract.  

LWA argues that the agency unreasonably delayed award to allow Barbosa 
to apply for and obtain the guard license.  LWA contends that the 
"real reason" that GSA delayed the award and did not find Barbosa 
nonresponsible was to circumvent the SBA certificate of competency 
(COC) procedures by allowing Barbosa to obtain the license.  However, 
the record reflects no improper delay by GSA, which proceeded 
diligently to complete the award process under the circumstances at 
hand.  Our Office will not attribute improper motives to government 
officials on the basis of inference or supposition.  Harper & Harper, 
B-253167.2, Oct. 12, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  216 at 5.  Accordingly, this 
allegation is not for consideration.

LWA also argues that GSA was on notice that there were various 
mistakes in Barbosa's bid, but failed to verify the bid and failed to 
conduct its own analysis of the awardee's mistake before awarding the 
contract.  Our Office has consistently held that only the contracting 
parties (here, the government and the firm in line for award) are in a 
position to assert rights and to bring forth all the necessary 
evidence to resolve mistakes in bid questions.  Riverport Indus., 
Inc., 64 Comp. Gen. 265 (1985) 85-1 CPD  para.  201; Haskell Corp.--Recon., 
B-218200.2, June 24, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  713 at 5; Libby Corp., 
B-218367.2, Apr. 10, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  412 at 1.  Here, as explained 
above, Barbosa consistently verified its bid.  If a contracting 
officer suspects there is a mistake in a bid, verification of the bid 
is to be requested of the bidder.  If the bidder verifies the bid, the 
contracting officer is to consider the bid originally submitted.  R.P. 
Sita, Inc., B-217027, Jan. 14, 1985, 85-1 CPD  para.  39 at 2.  LWA's 
objection to that process is not for consideration by our Office.

We also note that here the agency is awarding a fixed-price contract 
for services under which the successful contractor is bound by the 
contract terms to pay its employees the wages required by present and 
future wage determinations.  In these circumstances, there would be no 
reason to disturb an award even if an offeror proposed line item labor 
rates or furnished cost data showing proposed labor rates below those 
specified in a wage determination if the firm is otherwise deemed to 
be responsible.  Carolina Stevedoring Co., B-260006, May 18, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  3 at 8.   Further, whether Barbosa performs the contract in 
accordance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) is a matter for the 
DOL, which is responsible for the enforcement of the SCA.  Id. at 9.

The protests are dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States