Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Services, Inc.

Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Services, Inc. BNUMBER: B-270330; B-270330.2 DATE: February 28, 1996 TITLE: Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Services, Inc. ********************************************************************** DECISION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Services, Inc. File: B-270330; B-270330.2 Date:February 28, 1996 Stephen P. Flott, Esq., Lisa A. Federici, Esq., and Miriam Lavanya Shashikant, Esq., Flott, Rosner & O'Brien, for Cornet, Inc.; and William A. Roberts III, Esq., Lee Curtis, Esq., Jerone C. Cecelic, Esq., Marcia L. Stuart, Esq., and Karen L. Manos, Esq., Howrey & Simon, for Datacomm Management Services, Inc., protesters. Neal Walters, Esq., and William Kenny, Esq., Archer & Greiner, and Donald J. Mulvihill, Esq., Kathy Siberthau Strom, Esq., Paul W. Butler, Esq., and Barbara O. Brincefield, Esq., Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, for Telenex Corporation, an intervenor. Nicholas P. Retson, Esq. and Thomas J. Duffy, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where protest initially raises only general allegations and is subsequently supplemented in protester's comments by specific allegations, specific arguments must independently satisfy timeliness requirements; where record shows that protester could have advanced specific allegations in initial protest, these contentions are dismissed as untimely. 2. Protest allegations relating to technical acceptability of awardee's product are dismissed as untimely where not raised until after protester's receipt of agency report, even though allegations are based upon commercial information available to protester at an earlier time. 3. Protest against agency's decision to make award based on initial proposals is dismissed where solicitation advised offerors of agency's intent to award without discussions, and agency's decision that discussions were not necessary is not shown to be incorrect. 4. Protest by concern that initially filed protest at General Services Board of Contract Appeals is dismissed as untimely where, despite protester's position to the contrary, record shows that firm had knowledge sufficient to formulate bases for protest more than 14 days prior to filing at General Accounting Office. DECISION Cornet, Inc. and Datacomm Management Sciences, Inc. protest the award of a contract to Telenex Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAEA32-95-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Army to acquire a quantity of telecommunications matrix switches. The protesters principally maintain that the evaluation of their proposals as unacceptable, and Telenex's as acceptable, was improper. We dismiss the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP called for offers to furnish up to 20 matrix switches and advised offerors that the agency would make award to the firm submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government based on cost and numerous technical evaluation factors. The Army received four initial proposals, but ultimately found only Telenex's to be completely technically acceptable. The Army thus awarded a contract to Telenex based on its initial proposal on August 25. Cornet filed a protest in our Office on September 1, and Datacomm filed a protest at the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) on September 5. After learning of Datacomm's protest at the GSBCA, Cornet filed as an intervenor in that proceeding. Both firms were debriefed on September 11. Because of the pendency of Datacomm's protest at the GSBCA, our Office dismissed Cornet's protest on September 22. See 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.3(m)(6) (1995). Thereafter, on October 12, the GSBCA dismissed Datacomm's protest for lack of jurisdiction. Both firms subsequently filed protests in our Office on October 26. CORNET'S PROTEST In its initial, September 1 protest, filed in our Office prior to the debriefing, Cornet raised three general contentions: the agency improperly failed to engage in discussions; Telenex's switch failed to meet the requirement that the switches be 100 percent redundant;[1] and the agency improperly evaluated the Cornet and Telenex proposals on an "apples and oranges" basis because Cornet's proposal allegedly was based on a 4,000 port capacity matrix switch while Telenex's was based on a 1,000 port capacity switch.[2] Cornet's October 26 protest was a refiling of its September 1 protest letter (with a nonsubstantive cover letter attached), with no new arguments raised or information presented. On December 6, the Army submitted its agency report.