B-208296.2, MAR 7, 1983
Highlights
IS UNTIMELY WHERE THE PROTESTER KNEW THE EXPECTED CONTRACT COMMENCEMENT DATE AND THEREAFTER DID NOT DILIGENTLY PURSUE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ACTUAL AWARD. WHICH WERE TO BE PERFORMED IN SIX SEPARATE SERVICE AREAS. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE BID PROTESTS TO BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 4 C.F.R. NOR-CAL WAS AWARDED THE CONTRACT ON NOVEMBER 12. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TOLD YOUNG THAT THE FIRM AWARDED THE CONTRACT WAS EXPECTED TO COMMENCE PERFORMANCE ON OCTOBER 1. SINCE YOUNG KNEW THAT CONTRACT AWARD WAS SCHEDULED TO BE MADE BY OCTOBER AWARD. WE CONCLUDE THAT 2 MONTHS WAS AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOUNG TO WAIT BEFORE PURSUING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AWARD THAT ULTIMATELY FORMED THE BASIS OF ITS PROTEST.
B-208296.2, MAR 7, 1983
DIGEST: A PROTEST FILED 2 MONTHS AFTER CONTRACT AWARD, WHICH CHALLENGES THAT AWARD, IS UNTIMELY WHERE THE PROTESTER KNEW THE EXPECTED CONTRACT COMMENCEMENT DATE AND THEREAFTER DID NOT DILIGENTLY PURSUE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ACTUAL AWARD.
YOUNG PATROL SERVICE:
YOUNG PATROL SERVICE PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR GUARD SERVICES TO NOR-CAL SECURITY UNDER SOLICITATION NO. PBS-9PPB-82-0055 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ONE CONTRACT INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICES, WHICH WERE TO BE PERFORMED IN SIX SEPARATE SERVICE AREAS.
WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.
OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE BID PROTESTS TO BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1982). NOR-CAL WAS AWARDED THE CONTRACT ON NOVEMBER 12, 1982. YOUNG FILED THIS PROTEST ON JANUARY 18, 1983, STATING THAT IT DID NOT LEARN OF THE AWARD UNTIL JANUARY 7. YOUNG INDICATES, HOWEVER, THAT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1982, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TOLD YOUNG THAT THE FIRM AWARDED THE CONTRACT WAS EXPECTED TO COMMENCE PERFORMANCE ON OCTOBER 1. SINCE YOUNG KNEW THAT CONTRACT AWARD WAS SCHEDULED TO BE MADE BY OCTOBER AWARD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT 2 MONTHS WAS AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOUNG TO WAIT BEFORE PURSUING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AWARD THAT ULTIMATELY FORMED THE BASIS OF ITS PROTEST. THUS, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE PROTEST TO HAVE BEEN TIMELY FILED. SEE XTEK CORPORATION, B-207170, MAY 10, 1982, 82-1 CPD 448.
THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.