[Request for Review of GSA Transportation Audit Settlement]
Highlights
A carrier requested a review of a General Services Administration (GSA) audit settlement, contending that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) should reimburse it for providing a second container. GAO held that the carrier should be paid for furnishing the second container, since there was evidence supporting its argument that DLA ordered and used two containers. Accordingly, the settlement was reversed.
B-239231.4, Jul 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD 30
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protest of agency's procedures in post award reevaluation of proposals is untimely when filed more than 10 working days after basis of protest was known or should have been known.
Attorneys
C-E Environmental, Inc:
C-E Environmental, Inc. (C-EE) protests the agency's procedures in reevaluating proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA15-90 R- 0009, issued by the Army Materiel Command, for engineering, testing, and evaluation services in support of environmental programs at various Army installations. C-EE contends that the Army should issue a new solicitation clearly defining a proper procurement methodology or award it one of the contracts.
We dismiss the protest.
The RFP, issued October 19, 1989, provided for award of up to 15 indefinite quantity contracts against which task orders would be issued. Of the proposals submitted by the December 31 closing date, 24 were evaluated as technically acceptable. Evaluation of cost proposals included projections of total prices and adjustments for cost realism. March 30, 1990, award was made to the 15 offerors which proposed the lowest evaluated prices. C-EE was not one of the 15.
On April 9, 1990, EAI Corporation filed a protest B-239231 with our Office challenging the adequacy of the technical evaluation. /1/ In addition, on April 17, ICF Technology Inc. filed a protest B-239231.2 alleging a number of flaws in the agency's evaluation process. response, on April 24, the Army requested all 24 technically acceptable offerors to clarify a particular cost element in their proposals. April 25, C-EE submitted its pricing clarification.
After receiving the clarifications, the Army conducted a reevaluation of the proposals. C-EE again was not selected for award. On May 25, C-EE received a telephonic debriefing during which the agency addressed the process it used to reevaluate the pricing proposals of each offeror. Discussion of the details of the reevaluation made C-EE "extremely uncomfortable with the evenhandedness and appropriateness of the process." C-EE addressed these issues in its protest filed June 14, 1990.
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1990), a protest must be filed not later than 10 working days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. C-EE protests the reevaluation process including agency contacts with the offerors and unilateral adjustments to cost proposals. In view of C-EE's receipt of a request for clarification of its proposal on April 24, and its debriefing on May 25, these grounds were known, or should have been known to the protester by May 25. Its protest, reeived in our Office on June 14, was filed more than 10 working days later. Accordingly, the protest is untimely and not for consideration on the merits.
As recognized by C-ee, for good cause shown, or where a protest raises issues significant to the procurement system, our Office may consider a protest not timely filed. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(b). Although the protester notes that it "can present a significant issue ... of general importance," the protester does not identify what in its protest makes it "significant." Nor are we able from our review to identify any reason why we should consider C-EE's untimely protest.
The protest is dismissed.
/1/ A decision addressing EAI's protest will be issued separately.