Skip to main content

[Protest of Air Force Contract Award for Revetment Kits]

B-254242.2,B-254242.3 Published: May 03, 1994. Publicly Released: May 03, 1994.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested an Air Force contract award for revetment kits, contending that the: (1) Air Force improperly relaxed the solicitation's mandatory delivery terms for the awardee; (2) solicitation's delivery terms were ambiguous; (3) Air Force failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it regarding its contract costs and delivery methods; and (4) Air Force improperly evaluated the bidders' contract costs. GAO held that the: (1) solicitation's delivery terms were uniform and clearly stated; (2) protester untimely filed after bid closing its protest regarding alleged solicitation improprieties; (3) Air Force was not obligated to conduct discussions with the protester, since the protester failed to submit complete cost information; and (4) protester was not prejudiced by the Air Force's erroneous cost evaluation, since it would not have been in line for award even if the errors had been corrected. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

View Decision

B-231857, Jul 25, 1988, 88-2 CPD 81

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Moot allegation - GAO review DIGEST: Where a procuring agency renders a protest academic by taking the corrective action requested by the protester, the General Accounting Office has no legal basis on which to find the protester entitled to recover its protest costs.

Sealift Shipyards of Texas:

Sealift Shipyards of Texas protests that request for proposals (RFP) No. N00033-88-R-4001, issued by the Department of the Navy for layberth facilities for SL-7 ships, contained unduly restrictive specifications. Sealift also requests that it be awarded the costs of filing and pursuing the protest.

Sealift protested the RFP requirement that the facility have vertical clearance of at least 142 feet at mean high water, asserting that the ships could be berthed in a facility with a vertical clearance of 136 feet. Shortly after the protest was filed, the Navy, in response, issued an amendment to change the requirement to vertical clearance of no less than 136 feet. This change of the specification in accordance with Sealift's request has rendered the protest academic. Teleconferencing Systems, Inc., B-229928, Mar. 16, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 272.

Sealift, having received the amendment, points out that competition under the solicitation will be enhanced as a result of its protest. Sealift argues that since the Navy took corrective action only because of the protest, we should award the firm its protest costs.

Our authority to award a protester costs is provided by the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3554(c)(1) (Supp. IV 1986), as implemented by our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.6 (1988). This authority is expressly predicated upon a determination by this Office that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with a statute or regulation. Monarch Painting Corp., B-220666.3, Apr. 23, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 396. Here, our Office has not made such a determination since the protest issue has become academic. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to declare Sealift entitled to reimbursement of its costs.

The protest is dismissed and the claim is denied.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Air Force procurementBid evaluation protestsContract award protestsContract costsContract negotiationsCost analysisDelivery termsEquipment contractsUntimely protestsSolicitationsTransportation costs