B-245885, October 3, 1991

B-245885: Oct 3, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DIGEST: Protest of solicitation format is dismissed as untimely where initial agency-level protest was not filed prior to the time established for receipt of quotations. A standard form which the FSS states will be used for requotes. Our Regulations also provide that a matter initially protested to an agency will be considered only if the initial protest to the agency was filed within the time limits for filing a protest with our Office. 4 C.F.R. Haworth's agency level protest would have to have been filed by that time. /1/ its protest to our Office is untimely under the above standard. The protest is dismissed. /1/ Haworth's protest to our Office states that it "sought relief from the contracting officer" prior to the due date for quotations.

B-245885, October 3, 1991

DIGEST: Protest of solicitation format is dismissed as untimely where initial agency-level protest was not filed prior to the time established for receipt of quotations.

Attorneys

Haworth, Inc.:

Haworth, Inc. protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. F08602-91-Q-S344, issued by the Department of the Air Force. Haworth alleges that the RFQ, which requests requotes (quotations for quantities exceeding the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) basic order level) for furniture systems, improperly failed to include an SF-18, a standard form which the FSS states will be used for requotes. Haworth complains that the contracting officer denied its agency-level protest of the matter.

We dismiss the protest as untimely filed.

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests of alleged solicitation defects be filed not later than the time set for receipt of bids or proposals. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1991), as amended by 56 Fed.Reg. 3759 (1991). Our Regulations also provide that a matter initially protested to an agency will be considered only if the initial protest to the agency was filed within the time limits for filing a protest with our Office. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3). Here, the RFQ set forth 4:30 p.m. on September 18, 1991, as the deadline for receipt of quotations. Thus, to be timely under our Regulations, Haworth's agency level protest would have to have been filed by that time. As the documents filed with its protest show that Haworth did not file a written protest with the agency until September 20, /1/ its protest to our Office is untimely under the above standard.

The protest is dismissed.

/1/ Haworth's protest to our Office states that it "sought relief from the contracting officer" prior to the due date for quotations, but does not include a copy of the request for relief, or otherwise indicate that the request was in writing. See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 33.101; Barnes Elec. Co., Inc., B-234935, July 19, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 61. In contrast, the protest documents do include a copy of the September 20 agency-level protest. We therefore presume that Haworth did not file a written protest with the agency prior to September 20.