Matter of: PRAXAIR, Inc. File: B-253503 Date: July 13, 1993

B-253503: Jul 13, 1993

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests Moot allegation GAO review Protest is dismissed as academic where agency issued solicitation amendment to address protester's allegations. Counsel for both PRAXAIR and one of the interested parties were admitted to the protective order prior to the issuance of NASA's administrative report. We requested that PRAXAIR provide our Office with a statement of its position regarding which of its protest issues were still outstanding in view of NASA's corrective action amendment. Such a statement was necessary in our view because the agency's amendment of the RFP appeared to satisfy all of the protester's concerns. PRAXAIR's counsel stated that "without first reviewing the entirety of the agency report . . . it is impossible for PRAXAIR to accede to GAO's request for a statement of remaining issues.".

Matter of: PRAXAIR, Inc. File: B-253503 Date: July 13, 1993

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests Moot allegation GAO review Protest is dismissed as academic where agency issued solicitation amendment to address protester's allegations, and protester, despite request to do, so declined to identify any issues that in its view remained after agency's action.

Attorneys

DECISION PRAXAIR, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 10-S-0046-2, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to acquire liquid hydrogen. PRAXAIR argues that a number of the RFP's provisions unfairly favor one manufacturer and its method of delivering the liquid hydrogen.

We dismiss the protest as academic.

Shortly after PRAXAIR filed its protest, our Office issued a protective order pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(d) (1993), because it appeared that counsel for the protester would require access to various procurement sensitive documents. Counsel for both PRAXAIR and one of the interested parties were admitted to the protective order prior to the issuance of NASA's administrative report. On June 25, 1993, NASA filed its full report in our Office, and provided the protester and interested parties redacted versions of the report. NASA explained that it had issued an amendment to the RFP on June 21 which, in its view, addressed all of the protester's concerns.

After receiving its redacted copy of NASA's report, PRAXAIR requested that our Office provide it with all of the protected documents. In response, we requested that PRAXAIR provide our Office with a statement of its position regarding which of its protest issues were still outstanding in view of NASA's corrective action amendment. Such a statement was necessary in our view because the agency's amendment of the RFP appeared to satisfy all of the protester's concerns. Absent remaining issues, the undisclosed documents would not be relevant and thus would not be provided to PRAXAIR. Id.

In response to our request, PRAXAIR declined to provide a statement of the outstanding issues in its protest. By letter dated July 8, PRAXAIR's counsel stated that "without first reviewing the entirety of the agency report . . . it is impossible for PRAXAIR to accede to GAO's request for a statement of remaining issues."

Protests of agency action become academic when the contracting agency grants the relief requested, Steel Circle Bldg. Co., B-233055; B-233056, Feb. 10, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 139 and we do not issue decisions concerning such protests. East-West Research, Inc.--Recon., B-233623.2, Apr. 14, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 379. Here, NASA amended the RFP, apparently in total satisfaction of the protester's objections. PRAXAIR's initial protest related to the terms of the solicitation, and PRAXAIR's counsel knows or should know from a reading of the amended RFP whether the firm has any remaining concerns. We do not agree with the protester that it is necessary for it to see procurement sensitive documents in order to determine whether it has outstanding issues; any remaining defects should be apparent from the face of the solicitation. In view of these circumstances, and in view of PRAXAIR's refusal to provide our Office with a statement of its current bases of protest, we conclude that the agency's corrective action amendment has served to address all of PRAXAIR's objections.

The protest is dismissed.