B-182547, DEC 3, 1974

B-182547: Dec 3, 1974

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROTEST AGAINST BENCHMARK TEST REQUIREMENTS IN SOLICITATION FOR COMPUTER SYSTEM IS UNTIMELY UNDER SECTION 20.2(A) OF GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS BECAUSE PROTESTER DID NOT PROTEST MATTER PRIOR TO CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. PROTEST SUBMITTED ALMOST 2 MONTHS AFTER REJECTION OF PROTESTER'S PROTEST AGAINST ITS REJECTION AND AGENCY'S ACTIONS ALLEGEDLY FAVORING COMPETITOR IS ALSO UNTIMELY. THE SOLICITATION WAS A TWO-STEP NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT UNDER WHICH RELIANCE'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS FOUND UNACCEPTABLE BY USACSSEA. SEC. 20.2(A) (1974)) STATES IN PERTINENT PART: "*** PROTESTS BASED UPON ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN ANY TYPE OF SOLICITATION WHICH ARE APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS SHALL BE FILED PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS.

B-182547, DEC 3, 1974

PROTEST AGAINST BENCHMARK TEST REQUIREMENTS IN SOLICITATION FOR COMPUTER SYSTEM IS UNTIMELY UNDER SECTION 20.2(A) OF GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS BECAUSE PROTESTER DID NOT PROTEST MATTER PRIOR TO CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. PROTEST SUBMITTED ALMOST 2 MONTHS AFTER REJECTION OF PROTESTER'S PROTEST AGAINST ITS REJECTION AND AGENCY'S ACTIONS ALLEGEDLY FAVORING COMPETITOR IS ALSO UNTIMELY.

ANALOG HYBRID SYSTEMS, APPLIED DYNAMICS DIVISION OF RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY:

BY MAIL GRAM DATED OCTOBER 25, 1974, ANALOG HYBRID SYSTEMS, APPLIED DYNAMICS DIVISION OF RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY (RELIANCE), PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ELECTRONIC ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED (EAI) BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY COMPUTER SYSTEMS SUPPORT AND EVALUATION AGENCY (USACSSEA), WASHINGTON, D.C., PURSUANT TO SOLICITATION DAHC26-74-B 0007, FOR AN ANALOG HYBRID COMPUTER SYSTEM.

THE SOLICITATION WAS A TWO-STEP NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT UNDER WHICH RELIANCE'S TECHNICAL PROPOSAL WAS FOUND UNACCEPTABLE BY USACSSEA. RELIANCE RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS FACT AND THE REASONS THEREFOR ON AUGUST 30, 1974. THESE REASONS INCLUDED RELIANCE'S FAILURE TO MEET THE SOLICITATION'S BENCHMARK TEST REQUIREMENTS AND TO TIMELY QUALIFY TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT IN ITS OFFERED SYSTEM. THE ARMY HAD PREVIOUSLY REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELIANCE TO USE AN ARMY COMPUTER FOR THE REQUIRED BENCHMARK TESTS.

RELIANCE PRIMARILY OBJECTS TO THE BENCHMARK TESTS REQUIRED BY THE SOLICITATION, WHICH ALLEGEDLY COULD BE MET ONLY BY EAI. RELIANCE ALSO OBJECTS TO USACSSEA'S FAILURE TO GRANT IT PERMISSION TO CONDUCT THE BENCHMARK TESTS ON THE ARMY COMPUTER AND TO EXTEND QUALIFICATION DATES FOR ITS OFFERED EQUIPMENT. RELIANCE CONCLUDES THAT USACSSEA'S ACTIONS IN THIS SOLICITATION AND THE SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS RESULTED IN A SOLE-SOURCE AWARD TO EAI.

SECTION 20.2(A) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS (4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(A) (1974)) STATES IN PERTINENT PART:

"*** PROTESTS BASED UPON ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN ANY TYPE OF SOLICITATION WHICH ARE APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS SHALL BE FILED PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. IN OTHER CASES, BID PROTESTS SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 5 DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. ***"

SINCE RELIANCE DID NOT PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE AGAINST THE SOLICITATION'S BENCHMARK TEST REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS, AND DID NOT PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE AGAINST THE REJECTION OF ITS TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND USACSSEA'S PROCUREMENT PRACTICES WHICH ALLEGEDLY FAVORED EAI WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THESE BASES OF PROTEST BECAME KNOWN, RELIANCE'S PROTEST MUST BE CONSIDERED UNTIMELY.

THEREFORE, WE ARE CLOSING OUR FILE WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION.