United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

 

Decision 

Matter of: Mill City Partnership 

File: B-400712 

Date: December 16, 2008 

Richard E. Briansky, Esq., Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, for the protester. 

Gary J. Campbell, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for the intervenor. 

Madeline Shay, Esq., Corps of Engineers, for the agency. 

Cherie Owen, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Bid of a joint venture, which submitted a bid bond in the name of only one of the 

corporations forming the joint venture, was properly rejected by the agency as 

nonresponsive. 

DECISION 

Mill City Partnership of Lowell, Massachusetts protests the rejection of its bid under 

invitation for bids (IFB) No. W912WJ-08-B-0006, issued by the Army Corps of 

Engineers, for environmental restoration of the Mill River and Mill Pond in Stamford, 

Connecticut. The Corps determined that Mill City Partnership’s bid was 

nonresponsive because there was a discrepancy between the legal entity shown on 

the bid and the legal entity shown on the bid bond. 

We deny the protest. 

The IFB, issued on August 11, 2008, required a bid guarantee in the form of a bid 

bond in the amount of 20 percent of the bid. Mill City Partnership, the apparent low 

bidder at $5,678,625, identified itself in the bid forms alternately as Mill City 

Environmental Corp. (MCE), or Mill City Environmental Corp. w/ Teaming Partner 

C.R.C. Co., Inc. (Mill City Partnership).1

 Agency Report (AR) Tab 13. 

 

(continued...) 

Comptroller General

of the United States

1

While the bid contains conflicting statements as to whether the bid was submitted 

by MCE or Mill City Partnership (see Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3), it is 
The accompanying bid bond identified its principal as C.R.C. Company, Inc. AR, 

Tab 13, at 13. The principal was identified as a “corporation” under the “Type of 

Organization” section of the bid bond. Id. The signature block on the bond 

contained the signature of CRC’s president. Id. 

By letter dated September 29, the contracting officer notified Mill City that its bid 

was nonresponsive because of a deficiency in its bid bond. AR, Tab 7. The Corps 

awarded the contract to the next low bidder, Green Seal Environmental, Inc., at 

$5,793,221.45. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. 

The sufficiency of a bid bond relates to whether the government will receive full and 

complete protection in the event that the bidder fails to execute the required 

contract documents and deliver the required performance and payment bonds. 

Martina Enter./Tom Swenson Gen. Contractors, B-250766, Oct. 21, 1992, 92-2 CPD 

¶ 266 at 2 (holding that the bid of a joint venture, which submitted a bid bond in the 

name of only one of the corporations forming the joint venture, is nonresponsive). 

Among other things, the terms of the bid bond must clearly establish the liability of 

the surety at the time of bid opening; when the liability is not clear, the bond is 

defective. Design for Health, Inc., B-239730, Sept. 14, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 213 at 3. A 

surety does not incur a liability to pay the debts of another unless he expressly 

agrees to be bound. Mount Diablo Corp., Inc., B-228193, Nov. 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD 

¶ 475 at 2. For this reason, the principal listed on the bid bond must be the same 

legal entity as the nominal bidder. Reliable Elec. Constr., Inc., B-250092, Sept. 23, 

1992, 92-2 CPD ¶198 at 2. If the bid bond names a principal different from the 

nominal bidder, it is deficient and may not be corrected after bid opening as a minor 

informality. Atlas Contractors, Inc./Norman T. Hardee, a Joint Venture, B-208332, 

Jan. 19, 1983, 83-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 3. 

In the present case, the surety’s liability under the bid bond is contingent upon the 

bid being in the name of the corporation listed on the bid bond, i.e., “C.R.C. 

Company, Inc.” While it is not clear here whether the bidder was MCE or Mill City 

Partnership, it is clear that the nominal bidder was not “C.R.C. Company, Inc.” Thus 

 

(...continued) 

unnecessary for us to resolve this issue here because, in either case, the bid was 

nonresponsive. 

Page 2 B-400712 
we agree with the contracting officer that it is unclear that the surety would 

necessarily be bound in the event that the joint venture failed to execute the contract 

upon acceptance of its bid or declined to furnish acceptable performance or 

payment bonds.2

 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

 2

 The agency also questions whether the protester, Mill City Partnership, qualifies as 

a small business concern. Again, this question is academic if the bid is 

nonresponsive for lack of an adequate bid guarantee and, in any event, as the Corps 

recognizes, would be a matter to be resolved by the Small Business Administration 

and not our Office. 

Page 3 B-400712