ACRO-TECH, Inc.--Reconsideration

B-270506.2 Apr 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration of dismissal of protest as untimely is denied where protest was not filed within 14 days from when the protester first learned basis for protest. D500001M1 for pollution prevention research. [1] We dismissed the protest because it was untimely filed. A telephone debriefing was conducted by the contracting officer and the agency's SBIR program director. Essentially arguing that the reasons set forth by EPA in the "PROPOSAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION" summary were invalid. That the protester was not awarded either a 1994 or 1995 SBIR contract as a result of bias by the agency's SBIR director. We dismissed ACRO-TECH's protest as untimely since it was filed more than 14 calendar days after the protester learned of its basis for protest. View Decision Matter of: ACRO-TECH, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-270506.2 Date: April 18, 1996 Request for reconsideration of dismissal of protest as untimely is denied where protest was not filed within 14 days from when the protester first learned basis for protest. Attorneys DECISION ACRO-TECH, Inc. requests reconsideration of our December 11, 1995, dismissal of its protest under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fiscal Year 1995 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) solicitation No. D500001M1 for pollution prevention research. [1] We dismissed the protest because it was untimely filed. We deny the request for reconsideration. The EPA announced its SBIR award selections in early October 1995. On October 13, the protester--who had not been selected--contacted the contracting officer and asked her to send the firm the results of the agency's technical evaluation for its proposal. On October 16, by facsimile, the contracting officer transmitted a copy of the agency's one-page "PROPOSAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION" form to the protester which detailed ACRO-TECH's proposal deficiencies. In response, by facsimile to the contracting officer dated October 18, ACRO-TECH requested a telephone debriefing; ACRO-TECH advised the contracting officer that it wanted to discuss EPA's failure to award the firm an SBIR contract in 1995 as well as its nonselection under the prior year's 1994 SBIR solicitation. On November 8, a telephone debriefing was conducted by the contracting officer and the agency's SBIR program director, and on November 9, EPA sent ACRO-TECH a second copy of the "PROPOSAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION" form that it had provided to the protester on October 16, along with a list of the contractors who had been awarded contracts under the 1995 SBIR program. On November 13, ACRO-TECH filed this protest at our Office, essentially arguing that the reasons set forth by EPA in the "PROPOSAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION" summary were invalid, and that the protester was not awarded either a 1994 or 1995 SBIR contract as a result of bias by the agency's SBIR director. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.2(a)(2), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2)), we dismissed ACRO-TECH's protest as untimely since it was filed more than 14 calendar days after the protester learned of its basis for protest. The record showed that although ACRO-TECH had first received the written evaluation summary that formed the basis for its protest on October 16, it had delayed filing its protest at our Office until November 13. [2] We dismissed the protest on December 11. On reconsideration, ACRO-TECH argues that its November 13 protest to this Office was timely filed because it was unable to proceed with a protest at this Office until it had obtained the November 8 telephone debriefing. In this regard, ACRO-TECH maintains that the evaluation summary faxed to the protester on October 16 did not equip it with "enough logical basis for a credible protest." ACRO-TECH never mentioned--either in its original protest, its comments on the agency dismissal request, or its reconsideration request--any details from the November 8 telephone debriefing. Instead, ACRO-TECH's November 13 protest, on its face, only attacked the agency's evaluation results outlined in the "PROPOSAL TECHNICAL EVALUATION" form, which it had received on October 16; ACRO-TECH's protest challenged each finding in the written evaluation on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Moreover, although the agency filed a detailed request for summary dismissal on the grounds that ACRO-TECH's protest was untimely since it was not filed within 14 days of October 16, the protester's response to this dismissal request failed to mention any details from the November 8 debriefing to rebut the agency's untimeliness arguments. [3] Nor does the request for reconsideration refer to any information first obtained at the debriefing that formed the basis for the protest.