B-228368.2, Mar 21, 1988, 88-1 CPD 291
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Non-Prejudicial Allegation - GAO Review DIGEST: Where protester alleging restrictive solicitation terms has submitted an offer which is not low. The General Accounting Office will not consider the matter. Since even if the protest were sustained. Teledyne's subsequent request for reconsideration contains information which suggests that Teledyne may have filed a timely agency level protest and thus had timely filed its protest with our Office. The RFP was issued on February 23. The schedules called for specified quantities beginning 270 calendar days after award where first article is required We will not review a protest of allegedly restrictive requirements where the evaluation of offers subsequently discloses that the protester is not the low offeror in line for award and the complained of provisions had no material effect on the protester's pricing.
B-228368.2, Mar 21, 1988, 88-1 CPD 291
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Non-Prejudicial Allegation - GAO Review DIGEST: Where protester alleging restrictive solicitation terms has submitted an offer which is not low, and the allegedly restrictive terms had no material impact on the protester's price, the General Accounting Office will not consider the matter, since even if the protest were sustained, protester would not be in line for award.
Teledyne CME-- Request for Reconsideration:
Teledyne CME requests that we reconsider our decision in Teledyne CME, B-228368, Oct. 27, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 404, in which Teledyne protested the amended terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. N00123 87-R-0544, issued by the Naval Regional Contracting Center, Long Beach, California. In that decision, we dismissed Teledyne's protest as untimely, based upon information furnished by the Navy that Teledyne had first protested the allegedly objectionable terms of the RFP after the time and date set for the receipt of best and final offers (BAFOs). Teledyne's subsequent request for reconsideration contains information which suggests that Teledyne may have filed a timely agency level protest and thus had timely filed its protest with our Office. We do not resolve this issue, however, as we find the protest to be academic.
The RFP was issued on February 23, 1987, and called for the submission of initial offers by April 9, for a quantity of traveling wave tube amplifiers (TWTAs). The original solicitation called for offers for a fixed quantity of 45 TWTAs, with option quantities totaling an additional 67 units. Additionally, the original solicitation contained a delivery schedule which included first article testing and a schedule for offers where first article could be waived. The schedules called for specified quantities beginning 270 calendar days after award where first article is required
We will not review a protest of allegedly restrictive requirements where the evaluation of offers subsequently discloses that the protester is not the low offeror in line for award and the complained of provisions had no material effect on the protester's pricing. See Whittaker-Yardney Power Systems, B-227831, Sept. 10, 1987; 87-2 CPD Para. 232; Ven-Tel, Inc., B-204233, Mar. 8, 1982, 82-1 CPD Para. 207. That is the situation here.
Therefore, the protest is dismissed.