B-218148.2, MAR 11, 1985, 64 COMP.GEN. 336
Highlights
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - FILING PROTEST WITH CONTRACTING AGENCY DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL PROTEST CONTESTING PROPRIETY OF AGENCY ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO HIGHER PRICED COMPETITOR IS AFFIRMED WHERE THE PROTESTER FAILED TO FURNISH A COPY OF ITS PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WITHIN 1 DAY AFTER THE PROTEST WAS FILED WITH GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. STC CONTENDED THAT THE AIR FORCE IMPROPERLY PLACED A PURCHASE ORDER FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO A COMPETITOR EVEN THOUGH STC'S OWN EQUIPMENT WAS TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE AND LOWER PRICED. WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST BECAUSE STC FAILED TO FURNISH A COPY OF ITS PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WITHIN 1 DAY AFTER THE PROTEST WAS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE.
B-218148.2, MAR 11, 1985, 64 COMP.GEN. 336
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - FILING PROTEST WITH CONTRACTING AGENCY DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL PROTEST CONTESTING PROPRIETY OF AGENCY ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO HIGHER PRICED COMPETITOR IS AFFIRMED WHERE THE PROTESTER FAILED TO FURNISH A COPY OF ITS PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WITHIN 1 DAY AFTER THE PROTEST WAS FILED WITH GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
MATTER OF: STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, MARCH 11, 1985:
STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (STC) REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DISMISSAL OF ITS PROTEST CONCERNING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. FO4699 -85-R-OA002, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE. IN ITS PROTEST, STC CONTENDED THAT THE AIR FORCE IMPROPERLY PLACED A PURCHASE ORDER FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO A COMPETITOR EVEN THOUGH STC'S OWN EQUIPMENT WAS TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE AND LOWER PRICED. WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST BECAUSE STC FAILED TO FURNISH A COPY OF ITS PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WITHIN 1 DAY AFTER THE PROTEST WAS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE. FOR THE REASONS THAT FOLLOW, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PROTEST WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
STC'S PROTEST WAS FILED ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1985. UNDER OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, STC WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A COPY OF ITS PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY BY MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11. SEE SEC. 21.1(D) OF OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 49 FED.REG. 49,417, 49,420 (1984) (TO BE CODIFIED AT 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(D)). THE PROTESTER STATES THAT IT "BELIEVES" THAT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY RECEIVED AT LEAST THE ENCLOSURE TO ITS PROTEST, IF NOT THE PROTEST ITSELF, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11 AND THEREFORE THAT IT MATERIALLY COMPLIED WITH THIS PROVISION. HOWEVER, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, THE CONTRACTING AGENCY INFORMED OUR OFFICE THAT IT STILL HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER FROM THE PROTESTER. IN FACT, THE AGENCY NOW INFORMS US THAT THE FIRST COMMUNICATION THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PROTESTER WAS A TELEFAXED COPY OF THE PROTEST DOCUMENTS ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13. THE ACTUAL PROTEST DOCUMENTS DID NOT ARRIVE UNTIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14.
THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 1984, PUB.L. NO. 98-369 SEC. 2471(A) 98 STAT. 1175, 1198, 31 U.S.C. 3551, AND OUR IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS IMPOSE A STRICT TIME LIMIT OF 25 WORKING DAYS FOR AN AGENCY TO FILE A WRITTEN REPORT WITH OUR OFFICE FROM THE DATE OF THE TELEPHONE NOTICE OF THE PROTEST FROM OUR OFFICE. SEC. 21.3(C), 49 FED.REG. 49,420. EXTENSIONS ARE CONSIDERED EXCEPTIONAL AND ARE SPARINGLY GRANTED. ANY DELAY IN FURNISHING A COPY OF THE PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY THEREFORE NECESSARILY DELAYS ALL SUBSEQUENT PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AND FRUSTRATES OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY CONSIDERATION OF ALL OBJECTIONS TO AGENCY PROCUREMENT ACTIONS. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY REOPENING OUR FILE ON THIS PROTEST.
THE DISMISSAL IS AFFIRMED.