B-221221.3, MAR 10, 1986, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Highlights
KRAKEEL IS ESSENTIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A BID SUBMITTED TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) BY SUMMERVILLE AMBULANCE IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 534-07-86. SUMMERVILLE'S BID WAS REJECTED BY THE VA AS UNREASONABLY HIGH. INSISTING THAT ITS PRICE WAS REASONABLE. THE DISMISSAL WAS BASED ON AN INSIGNIFICANT TECHNICALITY. THE PROMPT FURNISHING OF A COPY OF THE PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE AGENCIES TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORILY IMPOSED TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING REPORTS. WE DID NOT DEVELOP THE PROTEST AND HAVE NO INFORMATION.
B-221221.3, MAR 10, 1986, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
THE HONORABLE STROM THURMOND:
UNITED STATES SENATE
IN YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 7, 1986, YOU REQUESTED OUR REVIEW OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO YOU BY JAMES A. KRAKEEL, SUMMERVILLE AMBULANCE INC. MR. KRAKEEL IS ESSENTIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT A BID SUBMITTED TO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) BY SUMMERVILLE AMBULANCE IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 534-07-86.
SUMMERVILLE'S BID WAS REJECTED BY THE VA AS UNREASONABLY HIGH; THE VA THEN CANCELED THE SOLICITATION. ON DECEMBER 3, 1984, SUMMERVILLE PROTESTED THE CANCELLATION TO OUR OFFICE, INSISTING THAT ITS PRICE WAS REASONABLE. WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST BECAUSE SUMMERVILLE HAD NOT FILED A COPY OF ITS PROTEST WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICE AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.1(D) (1985). ON DECEMBER 30, SUMMERVILLE ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION BECAUSE, IT ALLEGED, THE DISMISSAL WAS BASED ON AN INSIGNIFICANT TECHNICALITY. OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 21, 1986 AFFIRMED THE INITIAL DISMISSAL.
AS OUR DECISIONS POINT OUT, THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3553(B)(2)(A) (WEST SUPP. 1985), AND OUR IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS REQUIRE AN AGENCY TO FILE A WRITTEN REPORT WITH OUR OFFICE WITHIN 25 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE WE NOTIFY THE AGENCY OF THE PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.3(C). THE PROMPT FURNISHING OF A COPY OF THE PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE AGENCIES TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORILY IMPOSED TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING REPORTS; PERMITTING A DELAY IN FURNISHING A COPY OF THE PROTEST TO THE OFFICE THAT HAS TO RESPOND TO THE PROTEST COULD FRUSTRATE BOTH THE AGENCY'S ABILITY TO TIMELY FURNISH A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT AND OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROTESTS WITHIN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY CICA. FOR THAT REASON, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE REQUIREMENT TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE PROTEST TO THE AGENCY AN INSIGNIFICANT TECHNICALITY. BECAUSE MR. KRAKEEL DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT, WE DID NOT DEVELOP THE PROTEST AND HAVE NO INFORMATION, OTHER THAN THAT PROVIDED BY MR. KRAKEEL, ON THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION.