B-230676, Apr 25, 1988, 88-1 CPD 398

B-230676: Apr 25, 1988

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

The sole allegation of which was that the contracting agency was proceeding with an award of a contract without Considering protester's offer of an alternate part to that specified because the agency did not have "enough time" to do so is dismissed as academic since agency advises that it has. We dismiss the protest without awaiting the protester's comments on the agency report since it is clear from the record that the protest is academic. 4 C.F.R. Universal states that it was informed by a contracting official that its proposal for an alternate part would not be considered because there was not sufficient time for the agency to conduct an engineering evaluation of Universal's "product data.".

B-230676, Apr 25, 1988, 88-1 CPD 398

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Moot allegation - GAO review DIGEST: Protest, the sole allegation of which was that the contracting agency was proceeding with an award of a contract without Considering protester's offer of an alternate part to that specified because the agency did not have "enough time" to do so is dismissed as academic since agency advises that it has, in fact, evaluated protester's proposal and determined it to be technically unacceptable.

Universal Hydraulics Inc:

Universal Hydraulics Inc. protests any award under request for proposals (RFP) No. DLA700-87-R-4015, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). We dismiss the protest without awaiting the protester's comments on the agency report since it is clear from the record that the protest is academic. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m) (1988).

The solicitation called for a quantity of activating cylinder assemblies, national stock number (NSN) 3040-00-017-7987, which the solicitation described as Terex Corporation part No. 9240558. The solicitation also provided for the consideration of alternate parts. Universal states that it was informed by a contracting official that its proposal for an alternate part would not be considered because there was not sufficient time for the agency to conduct an engineering evaluation of Universal's "product data." In its protest Universal questions the propriety of a contracting agency permitting, if not encouraging, alternate sources to come forward if the agency is not willing to expend the effort to evaluate such proposals.

The DLA states, in resoonse to the protest, that it did, in fact, consider Universal's proposal of an alternate part, but the proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable due to deficient and incomplete technical data. It appears, therefore, that the DLA has performed the evaluation which the protester sought for its proposal. The protest is dismissed since the agency's evaluation of Universal's proposal renders it academic.