[Protest of GSA Exclusion of Offer From Competitive Range]

A firm protested the General Services Administration's (GSA) rejection of its bid for carpet tiles, contending that it acquired the bidding firm and was the bidder's successor in interest. GAO held that: (1) the bidder was initially a joint venture between the protester and another firm; (2) the protester acquired the bidder on the same day that the disputed bid expired; (3) on the agency's advice, the bidder attempted to reinstate, then withdraw its bid, but the protester attempted to extend the bid and win the award; (4) the protester's agent did not have authority to rescind the bid withdrawal; (5) GSA properly accepted the telefaxed reinstatement and withdrawal; and (6) after the bid's expiration, the protester did not act to extend the bid or otherwise demonstrate interest until it became aware that it might be in line for award. Accordingly, the protest was denied.