B-244471.2, B-244471.3, October 8, 1991

B-244471.2,B-244471.3: Oct 8, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of original protest and subsequently filed second protest are dismissed as academic where. Challenged bids are either rejected as nonresponsive or withdrawn. Protester is in line for award of a contract under disputed procurement. Maintained that the two low bids were nonresponsive and should be rejected. Responsive and responsible bidder it was entitled to award. The Army advised us that it had made no award decision and was still considering the responsiveness issues. Racal argues that its original protest was not premature because it challenged the continuing failure of the agency to reject the contested bids three weeks after bid opening. its second protest.

B-244471.2, B-244471.3, October 8, 1991

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of original protest and subsequently filed second protest are dismissed as academic where, after their filing, challenged bids are either rejected as nonresponsive or withdrawn, and protester is in line for award of a contract under disputed procurement.

Attorneys

Racal Filter Technologies, Ltd.-- Reconsideration; Racal Filter Technologies, Ltd.:

Racal Filter Technologies, Ltd. requests reconsideration of our decision of June 17, 1991, in which we summarily dismissed as premature its protest of the award of any contract under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAA09-91 -B-0022, issued by the Department of the Army. Racal also submits a second, separate protest on the procurement. We dismiss both the request for reconsideration and the additional protest.

In its original protest, Racal, the third low bidder, maintained that the two low bids were nonresponsive and should be rejected, and that as the remaining low, responsive and responsible bidder it was entitled to award. Subsequent to the filing of the original protest, the Army advised us that it had made no award decision and was still considering the responsiveness issues. In light of the status of the procurement, we dismissed the original protest as premature, since it merely anticipated improper agency action.

In its request for reconsideration, Racal argues that its original protest was not premature because it challenged the continuing failure of the agency to reject the contested bids three weeks after bid opening. its second protest, the firm repeats this complaint and also argues that the agency commencement of preaward surveys for the bidders at issue prior to determining bid responsiveness was improper.

Since the filing of Racal's request for reconsideration and second protest, the Army has advised us that it rejected one of the two contested low bids and permitted the withdrawal of the other on the basis of a mistake in bid. As the remaining low bidder, Racal is now in line for award. Consequently, the rejection and withdrawal of the two lower bids renders Racal's request for reconsideration and second protest academic. See Global Diesel Sys., Inc., B-229508.2, May 31, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 509; Eagle Crusher Co., Inc.-- Recon., B-210779.2, June 27, 1983, 83-2 CPD Para. 27.

The request for reconsideration and protest are dismissed.