B-179435, OCT 15, 1974

B-179435, OCT 15, 1974

WHERE PROTESTER WAS INFORMED BY LETTER DATED JUNE 28, 1974, RECEIVED BY PROTESTER NO LATER THAN JULY 5, 1974, THAT ITS BID WAS BEING REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE QUALIFIED, PROTEST RECEIVED BY GAO ON JULY 23, 1974, WAS UNTIMELY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED SINCE UNDER SECTION 20.2 (A) OF INTERIM BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS, TITLE 4 CFR, A PROTEST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER BASIS FOR PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.

C. RAY BEEBE & ASSOCIATES:

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SOLICITATION NO. 1-RS-75, ISSUED JUNE 6, 1974, INVITED BIDS FOR PROVIDING REPORTING SERVICES FOR THE NLRB IN HAWAII, AMONG OTHER PLACES, FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1974, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1975. ON JUNE 17, 1974, C. RAY BEEBE & ASSOCIATES (BEEBE) SUBMITTED ITS BID INDER THE SOLICITATION. ON JUNE 21, 1974, BEEBE RECEIVED A TELEX FROM NLRB IN WASHINGTON ADVISING OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE IFB AND THAT BIDDERS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO AMEND OR CHANGE THEIR BIDS. BY RETURN TELEGRAM, BEEBE ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE TELEX AMENDMENT, AND AMENDED ITS BID BY INCREASING THE BID FOR AN ATTENDANCE FEE FROM $25 TO $50 PER FULL DAY AND $25 FOR A HALF DAY. BY LETTER DATED JUNE 28, 1974, BEEBE WAS INFORMED BY MR. DONALD M. PROBST, CHIEF, FACILITIES AND SERVICES BRANCH OF THE NLRB, THAT ITS BID WAS BEING REJECTED BECAUSE OF ITS QUOTED PRICE OF $25 FOR ONE-HALF DAY'S ATTENDANCE AND $50 FOR A FULL DAY'S ATTENDANCE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A QUALIFIED BID AS IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE SOLICITATION.

AFTER RECEIPT OF THE LETTER REJECTING ITS BID, BEEBE APPARENTLY RETAINED AN ATTORNEY IN HAWAII HO CONTACTED NLRB ON JULY 5, 1974. HOWEVER, NO PROTEST WAS MADE TO THE AGENCY. ON JULY 23, 1974, BEEBE, THROUGH ITS WASHINGTON, D.C. COUNSEL, PROTESTED THE REJECTION OF ITS BID TO THIS OFFICE. BEEBE CONTENDS THAT IT SUBMITTED AN UNQUALIFIED BID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOLICITATION. FURTHERMORE, COUNSEL FOR BEEBE STATES THAT ECVEN THOUGH ITS PROTEST MIGHT BE UNTIMELY, IT SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THE PROTEST RAISES SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES.

THE INTERIM BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF OUR OFFICE (SECTION 20.2(A) OF TITLE 4 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS) REQUIRE THAT BID PROTESTS BE FILED IN OUR OFFICE NOT LATER THAN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. HERE, THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST, THE FACT ITS BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF ITS MANNER OF BIDDING ON THE ATTENDANCE FEE ITEM, WAS MADE KNOWN TO BEEBE BY LETTER DATED JUNE 28, 1974. FROM ITS SUBMISSION TO THIS OFFICE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT BEEBE RECEIVED THIS LETTER NO LATER THAN JULY 5, 1974. SINCE THE PROTEST WAS NOT FILED IN OUR OFFICE UNTIL JULY 23, 1974, IT WAS UNTIMELY FILED AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS BY OUR OFFICE.

SECTION 20.2(B) OF THE INTERIM BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS STATES THAT FOR "GOOD CAUSE SHOWN," OR WHERE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES ARE RAISED, THIS OFFICE MAY CONSIDER ANY PROTEST WHICH IS OTHERWISE UNTIMELY. ALTHOUGH BEEBE'S COUNSEL URGES THAT WE CONSIDER THE PROTEST UNDER THIS PROVISION, WE DO NOT BELIEVE ANY BASIS HAS BEEN STATED FOR INVOKING THIS EXCEPTION.