[Protest of Rejection of Bid as Nonresponsive by National Park Service]

A firm protested the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive by the National Park Service under an invitation for bids, a small business set-aside, for construction and renovations at a national historical park. The protester's bid was rejected as nonresponsive because it was accompanied by eight pages of text which the Park Service regarded as restricting the bid. Upon rejection of the protester's bid, the Park Service cancelled the original solicitation and readvertised the procurement because the protester's bid was the only bid received. The firm also protested the readvertisement of the procurement, claiming that six of the nine businesses that submitted bids in response to the readvertisement were ineligible to receive the award. GAO determined that the protester's initial protest to the Park Service was filed in a timely manner, but some question existed as to whether its subsequent protests were timely. GAO held that: (1) the contracting agency's issuance of an amendment to the solicitation which advised of the rejection of the sole bid received and the resolicitation of the procurement constituted adverse agency action on the protest, so the firm's protest to GAO, filed 1 month after the Park Service issued the amendment, was untimely and would not be considered; (2) the firm's protest of an alleged impropriety in the solicitation was not protested until after bid opening, so the protest was untimely and would not be considered; and (3) the protester's contention that a number of the bidders were ineligible for award for a variety of reasons would not be considered because the protester would not identify the bidders nor state to which each allegation pertained. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.