Skip to main content

B-244926, Jul 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD 100

B-244926 Jul 29, 1991
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

Protest of amended evaluation criteria in solicitation is dismissed as untimely where not filed before next closing date following amendment. Protest alleging that agency improperly terminated protester's contract for convenience is dismissed. Protests of alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing date for receipt of proposals following the incorporation. 4 C.F.R. The closing date for receipt of proposals was March 15. Since Laidlaw's protest of the amendment was not filed in our Office until July 24. This protest ground is untimely. An agency's decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of the government is a matter of contract administration which our Office generally will not review. 4 C.F.R.

View Decision

B-244926, Jul 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD 100

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: 1. Protest of amended evaluation criteria in solicitation is dismissed as untimely where not filed before next closing date following amendment. PROCUREMENT - Contract Management - Contract administration - Convenience termination - Administrative determination - GAO review 2. Protest alleging that agency improperly terminated protester's contract for convenience is dismissed, as it concerns a matter of contract administration not within General Accounting Office bid protest function.

Attorneys

Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.:

Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. protests the award of any contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. DLA200-91-R-0063, issued by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service for waste disposal. Laidlaw objects to the RFP's amended evaluation criteria, and also alleges that the agency improperly terminated for convenience two delivery orders under its current contract in order to resolicit those requirements under the RFP.

We dismiss the protest.

Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that, to be timely, protests of alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing date for receipt of proposals following the incorporation. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1991). Here, Laidlaw protests the evaluation criteria as set forth in amendment No. 0002 of the RFP, issued on February 26, 1991; the closing date for receipt of proposals was March 15. Since Laidlaw's protest of the amendment was not filed in our Office until July 24, this protest ground is untimely.

As for Laidlaw's assertion that the agency improperly terminated two delivery orders under its current contract in order to resolicit those requirements under the RFP, an agency's decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of the government is a matter of contract administration which our Office generally will not review. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(1). We will consider the propriety of a contract termination only where the termination was based on the agency's conclusion that the original contract award was improper, and the protester is challenging that conclusion; this is not the case here. See Condotels, Inc., et al., B-224791 et al., June 20, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 644.

The protest is dismissed.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs