B-240274, B-230275, Oct 15, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protests that agency improperly canceled two requests for quotations instead of awarding contracts to the firm are dismissed as untimely where protester did not file protests until more than 10 days after being apprised of cancellations. The canceled RFQs were two out of a group of five RFQs issued for the services of one or more firms to conduct surveys of various flora and fauna in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore area in contemplation of the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The two RFQs were issued as small business-small purchase set-asides in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 13.105 (FAC 84-28).
B-240274, B-230275, Oct 15, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protests that agency improperly canceled two requests for quotations instead of awarding contracts to the firm are dismissed as untimely where protester did not file protests until more than 10 days after being apprised of cancellations.
Attorneys
White Water Associates, Inc.:
White Water Associates, Inc. protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) Nos. RE6320-0-0008 and RE6320-0-0012, issued by the National Park Service for services in connection with the preparation of an environmental impact statement at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan.
White Water also protests the issuance of request for proposals (RFP) Nos. RFP-MWR-0-0009 and RFP-MWR-0-0010 for the same requirements on an unrestricted basis. We dismiss the protests.
The canceled RFQs were two out of a group of five RFQs issued for the services of one or more firms to conduct surveys of various flora and fauna in the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore area in contemplation of the preparation of an environmental impact statement. The two RFQs were issued as small business-small purchase set-asides in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 13.105 (FAC 84-28). In response to the two RFQs, which contemplated the evaluation of price only, the agency received two quotations each, one from the protester and one from different large business entities. After receipt and evaluation of the quotations, the agency erroneously placed orders with each of the large business entities which had quoted a price substantially below the prices quoted by the protester under the RFQs.
Subsequently, the agency realized that the awards had been made to large business entities and, accordingly, canceled the orders. The agency then determined to resolicit its requirements using RFPs calling for the evaluation of technical proposals as well as an evaluation of price. orally informed the protester of its decision to cancel the earlier RFQs on April 4, 1990, and informed the protester in writing of the cancella agency issued the RFPs on an unrestricted basis on June 20. Both RFPs specify a closing date for the receipt of initial proposals of July 20. White Water's protests were filed with our Office on July 2.
White Water's protests regarding the agency's cancellation of the initial RFQs (rather than awarding a contract to the firm pursuant to those RFQs) are untimely. As relevant here, protests must be filed with our Office not later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1990). With respect to the cancellation of the RFQs, the record shows that White Water was aware of the agency's actions regarding the cancellations and the reasons for not awarding contracts to the firm no later than its receipt of the April 20th letter. /1/ Consequently, its protests regarding those cancellations, which were filed on July 2, more than 2 months after its receipt of the letter, are untimely. /2/
The protests are dismissed.
/1/ Moreover, in a case not involving handicapped individuals, we permitted the Navy to purchase luggage for members of a recruiting team who were required to travel on official business for 26 weeks a year. B-200154, Feb. 12, 1981. In that case we agreed with the Navy that it would be unreasonable to expect recruiting team members to furnish their own luggage in moreover, in a case not involving handicapped individuals we permitted the Navy to purchase luggage for members of a recruiting team who were required to travel on official business light of the exceptional wear and tear due to the amount of travel necessitated to do the job. Id.
/2/ We stressed that such purchases would only be permitted in highly unusual circumstances in the future. Id. The latter case is analogous to the instant case since the IRS District Office has asserted that Mr. Davidson's job requires him to travel over 50 percent of the time and that the travel is causing damage to his personal property.