BNUMBER:  B-278415 
DATE:  December 17, 1997
TITLE: SWR, Inc., B-278415, December 17, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:SWR, Inc.

Date:     B-278415

Date:December 17, 1997

Timothy S. Swindall for the protester.
B.J. Braun, Esq., Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, for 
the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected unsigned proposal containing only a "typed 
signature" where no other documentation submitted with the proposal 
had an original signature and the offeror had not, on or prior to the 
closing date for receipt of proposals, submitted a corporate 
resolution authorizing typewritten signatures.  

DECISION

SWR, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. DTCG23-98-R-TPM01B, issued by the Department of 
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard for maintenance, repair and 
rebuilding of mail processing equipment.  The agency rejected SWR's 
proposal because it was not signed.  SWR contends that this omission 
should have been waived as a minor informality.

We deny the protest.

The agency received two proposals, including SWR's, by the closing 
date.  Although SWR proposed the apparent low price, its proposal was 
unsigned and contained only the typewritten name of SWR's Vice 
President, below which was typewritten, "Vice President, SWR, Inc."  
No documents submitted by SWR with its proposal contained an original 
signature.  After initially considering the possibility of waiving the 
lack of signature as a minor informality, the agency eventually 
determined to  reject SWR's proposal as unacceptable and made award to 
Pitney Bowes, the other offeror.     

SWR maintains that its proposal contains a typewritten signature and 
contends that its firm formally adopted, before the closing date, a 
resolution permitting the execution of documents by typewritten 
signature.  SWR also points out that its proposed price was 
significantly below the awardee's. 
 
The agency points out that the solicitation provided that the agency 
intended to make award without discussions, which it did, and that SWR 
failed to submit to the agency, prior to the closing date, any 
resolution that SWR had adopted regarding the authorization of 
typewritten signatures.  

An offer which is not signed, and lacks some other material indication 
of the offeror's intention to be bound, generally must be rejected 
since the government's acceptance of the offer would not result in a 
binding contract without resort to confirming the offeror's intention 
to be bound.  Valencia Technical Servs., Inc., 
B-223288, July 7, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  40 at 1.  Where, as here, the 
solicitation contemplates award on the basis of initial proposals, 
after the established date for submitting proposals, it would be 
unfair to other offerors to ask a vendor that had submitted an 
unsigned proposal whether it intends to be bound by its offer.  Id.  
Although after rejection of its proposal, SWR submitted a copy of an 
undated corporate resolution authorizing typewritten signatures, 
"[e]ffected as of 8 January 1997," to be effective, such documentation 
must be provided on or before the closing date.[1]  Stafford Grading 
and Paving Co., Inc., B-245907, Jan. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  66 at 2.  
Accordingly, the agency's rejection of SWR's proposal was appropriate.  

While SWR points out that there are monetary savings associated with 
accepting its proposal, the maintenance of confidence in the integrity 
of the government procurement system outweighs the possible monetary 
advantage to be gained by considering the unsigned proposal.  Valencia 
Technical Servs., Inc., supra, at 1-2.[2]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.607 (June 1997) instructs 
contracting officers to examine all proposals for minor informalities, 
and then refers to FAR  sec.  14.405 and 14.407.  FAR  sec.  14.405(c)(2), 
entitled "Minor informalities or irregularities in bids," states that 
the lack of a signature on a bid may be waived as a minor informality 
if:

            [t]he firm submitting a bid has formally adopted or 
            authorized, before the date set for opening of bids, the 
            execution of documents by typewritten, printed, or stamped 
            signature and submits evidence of such authorization and 
            the bid carries such a signature.

2. While the protester questions the reasonableness of the awardee's 
proposed price, it is below the independent government cost estimate.