[Protest of Army Contract Awards for Emergency Room Services]
Highlights
A firm protested two Army contract awards for emergency room services, contending that: (1) the Army improperly evaluated and downgraded its bid based on concerns regarding its performance on a prior contract; (2) the Army was biased against it, since it did not discuss its performance deficiencies and investigate the awardees' past performances; and (3) an awardee misrepresented its capability to perform the required services, since it requested a waiver from the solicitation's credentialing requirements after award. GAO held that: (1) the Army properly evaluated the protester's technical bid; (2) it would not consider whether the Army conducted meaningful discussions with the protester, since it would not be in line for award even if its protest were sustained; (3) the protester failed to provide any evidence to support its allegation that the Army was biased against it; and (4) the awardee's request for waiver of solicitation requirements after award was a matter of contract administration which it would not consider. Accordingly, the protest was denied.
B-234614, Apr 3, 1989, 89-1 CPD 346
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: Protest alleging solicitation deficiencies (failure to issue solicitation as a small business set-aside) which is not filed before the bid opening date is untimely.
Perdomo & Sons, Inc.:
Perdomo & Sons, Inc., protests that the Veterans Administration (VA) acted improperly by failing to set aside for exclusive small business participation solicitation No. 619-72-89, issued for refuse service at the VA Medical Center in West Los Angeles, California.
Under the initial solicitation, No. 691-53-89, issued by the VA exclusively as a small business set-aside for refuse service at the VA Medical Center, Perdomo submitted the only timely bid at the initial bid opening on November 29, 1988. The VA rejected Perdomo's bid as excessively priced and canceled the solicitation. The VA subsequently withdrew the procurement from the small business set-aside program. January 4, 1989, the VA issued solicitation No. 691-72-89 on an unrestricted basis for refuse service with bid opening scheduled for February 23. Perdomo hand-delivered its bid to the VA on February 23. letter dated February 23, and received by our Office on February 24, Perdomo filed a protest, essentially arguing that the VA acted improperly by failing to set aside this solicitation for exclusive small business participation. /1/
Perdomo's protest concerns alleged deficiencies which were apparent from the solicitation. See Professional Aviation Maintenance & Management Services, Inc., B-232078, Oct. 13, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 350; Geo Marine Resources, B-233776.3, Jan. 24, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 72. Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to bid opening must be filed prior to bid opening. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1988). Here, the alleged deficiencies were apparent prior to bid opening, and Perdomo only filed its protest with our Office on February 24, the day after bid opening. Therefore, its protest is untimely and not for consideration on the merits. Id.
Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.
/1/ The record shows that no agency-level protest was filed by Perdomo prior to bid opening.