B-179789, NOV 20, 1973
Highlights
OUR OFFICE IS NOT INCLINED TO CONSIDER AN UNTIMELY BID PROTEST CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL UNACCEPTABILITY AS COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTION SET FORTH IN SECTION 20.2(B) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS WHICH PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROTEST FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN OR WHERE A PROTEST RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE. WAS UNTIMELY UNDER SECTION 20.2 OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS AND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 20.2(B) OF OUR PROCEDURES. IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO EXPLAIN FULLY THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR ALTERNATE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AS UNACCEPTABLE UNDER STEP 1 OF SOLICITATION N00173-73-B-0025 CONSTITUTES AN ISSUE SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ALLEGED RESTRICTIVENESS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.
B-179789, NOV 20, 1973
OUR OFFICE IS NOT INCLINED TO CONSIDER AN UNTIMELY BID PROTEST CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL UNACCEPTABILITY AS COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTION SET FORTH IN SECTION 20.2(B) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS WHICH PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PROTEST FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN OR WHERE A PROTEST RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE.
TO ELECTRONIC SPACE SYSTEMS CORPORATION:
BY TELEGRAM DATED OCTOBER 17, 1973, YOU REQUESTED THAT OUR OFFICE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF THE SAME DATE THAT YOUR PROTEST SUBMITTED BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1973, WAS UNTIMELY UNDER SECTION 20.2 OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS AND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.
YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 20.2(B) OF OUR PROCEDURES. IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO EXPLAIN FULLY THE REASON FOR THE REJECTION OF YOUR ALTERNATE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AS UNACCEPTABLE UNDER STEP 1 OF SOLICITATION N00173-73-B-0025 CONSTITUTES AN ISSUE SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ALLEGED RESTRICTIVENESS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.
OUR OFFICE CONSIDERS ISSUES TO BE SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OR PROCEDURES WHEN THEY INVOLVE PRINCIPLES OF WIDESPREAD INTEREST. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO VIEW A PROTEST CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL UNACCEPTABILITY AS COMING WITHIN THIS EXCEPTION. 52 COMP. GEN. 20 (1972), COPY HEREWITH.
ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE CLOSING OUR FILE WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION.