B-246101.2, Nov 20, 1991

B-246101.2: Nov 20, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

Protest against elimination of proposal from the competitive range was properly dismissed as untimely when filed more than 10 working days after agency notified protester of the elimination. 2. Protester whose proposal has been eliminated from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge award to another firm. We dismissed the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 working days after the basis for protest was known or should have been known. Which was filed in our Office on October 7. He also challenged the agency's decision to make a single award to a firm from outside the region where the contract services are to be performed. Hernandez notes that his protest was filed within 10 working days of his receipt of a September 24 letter from HHS announcing the award of the contract to another firm.

B-246101.2, Nov 20, 1991

DIGEST: 1. Protest against elimination of proposal from the competitive range was properly dismissed as untimely when filed more than 10 working days after agency notified protester of the elimination. 2. Protester whose proposal has been eliminated from the competitive range is not an interested party to challenge award to another firm.

Attorneys

Anthony Hernandez-- Reconsideration:

Anthony Hernandez requests reconsideration of our October 5, 1991, dismissal of his protest under request for proposals No. 08-91-HHS-O5, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for audit or review services. We dismissed the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 working days after the basis for protest was known or should have been known.

We affirm our prior dismissal.

In his original protest, which was filed in our Office on October 7, 1991, Mr. Hernandez challenged the agency's bases for eliminating his proposal from the competitive range, as provided in the agency's letter of September 9, 1991. He also challenged the agency's decision to make a single award to a firm from outside the region where the contract services are to be performed. In his request for reconsideration, Mr. Hernandez notes that his protest was filed within 10 working days of his receipt of a September 24 letter from HHS announcing the award of the contract to another firm.

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules requiring timely submission of protests. Under these rules, protests not based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 working days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1991). While the original protest was filed within 10 working days of receipt of the notice of award, it was filed more than 10 days after Mr. Hernandez received notice that his proposal had been eliminated from the competitive range, assuming 1 week for mail delivery of the September 9 letter from HHS. Accordingly, his protest on that basis was properly dismissed as untimely filed.

The protester's other allegation, which challenges the award of a single contract to a firm located outside the region of performance, is not for consideration because the protester is not an interested party to raise it. Under the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551-3556 (1988), only an "interested party" may protest a federal procurement. That is, a protester must be an actual or prospective supplier whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or the failure to award a contract. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a).

Determining whether a party is interested involves consideration of a variety of factors, including the nature of issues raised, the benefit or relief sought by the protester, and the party's status in relation to the procurement. Black Hills Refuse Serv., 67 Comp.Gen. 261 (1988), 88-1 CPD Para. 151. A protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained. ECS Composites, Inc., B-235849.2, Jan. 3, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 7. Since Mr. Hernandez's proposal was eliminated from the competitive range because it did not have a reasonable chance for award (a determination which our Office will not review because it was not timely protested), Mr. Hernandez is not an interested party to challenge the number of awards made, or the qualifications of the awardee.

The prior dismissal is affirmed.