Skip to Highlights
Highlights

QUESTIONS DIGEST: WHERE CONTRACTING AGENCY ERRONEOUSLY ADVISED PROTESTER THAT AWARD OF A CONTRACT HAD BEEN MADE WHEN IT HAD NOT AND PROTESTER'S BID IS CURRENTLY BEING EVALUATED FOR AWARD. PROTEST HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ANY ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION ARE PREMATURE. AWARD WAS MADE TO LEWIS AT A HIGHER PRICE. DGSC ADVISES THAT WHITE WAS NOTIFIED OF AN AWARD TO LEWIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE AND DGSC CURRENTLY IS OBTAINING INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF WHITE'S ALTERNATE PART. IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR REVIEW UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION IS PREMATURE.

View Decision

B-215875, OCT 24, 1984, 84-2 CPD 463

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - MOOT, ACADEMIC, ETC. QUESTIONS DIGEST: WHERE CONTRACTING AGENCY ERRONEOUSLY ADVISED PROTESTER THAT AWARD OF A CONTRACT HAD BEEN MADE WHEN IT HAD NOT AND PROTESTER'S BID IS CURRENTLY BEING EVALUATED FOR AWARD, PROTEST HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ANY ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION ARE PREMATURE.

R.E. WHITE & ASSOCIATES:

R.E. WHITE & ASSOCIATES (WHITE) PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO LEWIS ENGINEERING COMPANY (LEWIS) UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. DLA400-84-Q- 5194, FOR 41 TEMPERATURE CONTROLS, LEWIS PART NO. 124D12FM, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER (DGSC), RICHMOND, VIRGINIA. WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.

WHITE ORIGINALLY ALLEGED THAT EVEN THOUGHT IT HAD SUBMITTED THE LOWEST BID OFFERING AN INTERCHANGEABLE PART, AWARD WAS MADE TO LEWIS AT A HIGHER PRICE. DGSC ADVISES THAT WHITE WAS NOTIFIED OF AN AWARD TO LEWIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. IN ACTUALITY, NO AWARD HAS BEEN MADE AND DGSC CURRENTLY IS OBTAINING INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF WHITE'S ALTERNATE PART. NEVERTHELESS, WHITE SUGGESTS THAT WE SUSPEND THE OUTCOME OF THE PROTEST UNTIL AFTER DGSC HAS EVALUATED THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF ITS BID.

IN ESSENCE, WHITE SEEKS TO MAINTAIN THE PROTEST ON THE BASIS THAT DGSC POSSIBLY MAY COMMIT AN IMPROPRIETY IN EVALUATING ITS BID. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR REVIEW UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1984), BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION IS PREMATURE. SEE PLURIBUS PRODUCTS, INC., B-214924, MAY 23, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 562.

GAO Contacts