Agency's Failure To Follow Proper Procurement Procedures

B-175280(2), OCT 5, 1972

BID PROTEST - LATE OFFER ALTHOUGH THE PROTEST OF KISCO COMPANY, INC., HAS BEEN DENIED, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT PRECISELY FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASPR 3-805.1(B) IN THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVICE TO BE GIVEN OFFERORS REGARDING THE SETTING OF A SPECIFIED DATE FOR THE CLOSING OF NEGOTIATIONS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ACTION BE TAKEN TO INSURE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASPR 3-805.1(B) IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF OUR DECISION OF TODAY, DENYING THE PROTEST OF KISCO COMPANY, INC., UNDER RFP DAAA09-72-R-0053.

ALTHOUGH WE DENIED THE PROTEST, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DID NOT PRECISELY FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS IN ASPR 3 805.1(B) IN THE SUBJECT PROCUREMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVICE TO BE GIVEN OFFERORS REGARDING THE SETTING OF A SPECIFIED DATE FOR THE CLOSING OF NEGOTIATIONS. IN THIS REGARD THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S MESSAGE OF JANUARY 18, 1972, ESTABLISHING JANUARY 26 AS THE CLOSING DATE, WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF ASPR 3 805.1(B), IN THAT OFFERORS WERE NOT ADVISED THAT ANY REVISIONS RECEIVED AFTER THAT DATE WOULD BE TREATED AS LATE PROPOSALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "LATE PROPOSALS" PROVISIONS OF THE RFP, NOR WERE OFFERORS ADVISED THAT AFTER THE CLOSING DATE NO INFORMATION OTHER THAN NOTICE OF UNACCEPTABILITY OF PROPOSAL WOULD BE FURNISHED UNTIL AWARD WAS MADE. WHILE WE BELIEVE ALL OFFERORS SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY CONSIDERED JANUARY 26 AS THE CLOSING DATE IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE JANUARY 18 NOTICE, WE RECOMMEND THAT ACTION BE TAKEN TO INSURE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASPR 3-805.1(B) IN FUTURE PROCUREMENTS.

THE PROTEST WAS THE SUBJECT OF REPORTS DATED APRIL 21 AND MAY 11, 1972, FROM THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL. THE FILE FORWARDED WITH THE REPORT OF APRIL 21 IS RETURNED.