B-236841, Oct 10, 1989, 89-2 CPD ***
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: Protest alleging specification deficiencies apparent on the face of the solicitation is untimely when not filed prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. Is untimely because it involves apparent solicitation improprieties which were not filed by the August 25 closing date for receipt of proposals. We agree that the protest is untimely. Our Regulations require that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals must be filed prior to that date. NPF argues that the solicitation's specifications are defective and that the requirement for security clearances is restrictive.
B-236841, Oct 10, 1989, 89-2 CPD ***
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: Protest alleging specification deficiencies apparent on the face of the solicitation is untimely when not filed prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals.
NPF Services, Inc.:
NPF Services, Inc., protests the competitive procurement of computer maintenance services sought by Westinghouse Savannah River Co. on behalf of the Department of Energy, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. EC- 890817. NPF contends that the solicitation improperly failed to contain a complete list of the computer equipment to be maintained and that the solicitation required the subcontractor to obtain security clearances.
We dismiss the protest as untimely.
Energy urges that NPF's protest, filed with our Office on September 6, is untimely because it involves apparent solicitation improprieties which were not filed by the August 25 closing date for receipt of proposals, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1989). We agree that the protest is untimely.
Our Regulations require that protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals must be filed prior to that date. Id. Here, NPF argues that the solicitation's specifications are defective and that the requirement for security clearances is restrictive. These contentions concern solicitation improprieties which are apparent on the face of the solicitation. NPF, however, did not protest these issues to our Office until 8 working days after the closing date and, accordingly, this protest is untimely. See GM Plastics, B-235083, Apr. 24, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 405.
We note that on August 16 the protester informed Westinghouse of NPF's contention that the solicitation specifications did not contain a complete list of computer equipment to be maintained. Westinghouse responded on August 17 that the solicitation provided offerors with an accurate representation of the computer equipment on site. Even were we to treat NPF's August 16 letter as an agency-level protest, NPF's protest to our Office nearly 15 days after Westinghouse's denial of NPF's contention is untimely. See M.C. & D. Capital Corp., B-225830, July 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 32.
The protest is dismissed.