Custom Data Services

B-271288.2 Oct 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging agency's decision to "bundle" agency's requirements into one procurement rather than issuing multiple solicitations is dismissed as untimely where agency's "bundling" approach was apparent from the face of the request for proposals. Protest was not filed prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. Protest challenging technical evaluation of proposal is dismissed as untimely where not filed within 14 days after protester was informed of deficiencies in its proposal. Protester is not an interested party to challenge acceptability of awardee's proposal where it would not be in line for award even if the proposal were rejected. Award was to be made to the offeror whose offer constituted the best value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Custom Data Services File: B-271288.2 Date: October 9, 1996 Protest challenging agency's decision to "bundle" agency's requirements into one procurement rather than issuing multiple solicitations is dismissed as untimely where agency's "bundling" approach was apparent from the face of the request for proposals, but protest was not filed prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. Agency properly excluded protester's technically unacceptable proposal from the competitive range since it had no chance of being selected for award despite its low price. Protest challenging technical evaluation of proposal is dismissed as untimely where not filed within 14 days after protester was informed of deficiencies in its proposal. Where agency holds discussions with competitive range offerors and requests best and final offers (BAFO), offerors properly may revise their proposals in their BAFOs. Protester is not an interested party to challenge acceptability of awardee's proposal where it would not be in line for award even if the proposal were rejected. Attorneys DECISION Custom Data Services (CDS) protests the award of contracts to SSAI and Eagle Systems under request for proposals (RFP) No. 68335-95-R-0063, issued by the Department of the Navy for engineering and technical services. The protester complains that the agency improperly "bundled" the solicitation's requirements, and objects to the technical evaluation of its proposal and its "premature" elimination from the competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on January 31, 1995, and amended four times prior to closing, sought offers to furnish engineering and technical services to Navy integrated logistics support (ILS) managers supporting the design, development, test, evaluation, procurement, production, deployment, and in-service support for aircraft launch and recovery equipment, aircraft-platform interface systems and subsystems, and all Navy/Marine Corps aircraft support equipment. The solicitation identified six areas ("tasks") in which support services would be required: ILS planning and management; maintenance planning/logistics support analysis; supply support; support equipment; technical data; and training and training support. Award was to be made to the offeror whose offer constituted the best value to the government, technical factors and price considered. Nine offerors submitted proposals by the April 4 closing date. Six of the nine proposals, including CDS's, received technical evaluations of unacceptable; these offerors were informed by letters dated February 15, 1996, that their proposals had been excluded from the competitive range. The Navy conducted discussions with the three remaining offerors, upon conclusion of which the competitive range was narrowed to the proposals from two firms, SSAI and Eagle. The Navy conducted two additional rounds of discussions with these firms and requested best and final offers (BAFO) from them. Upon receipt of the BAFOs, the Navy decided to split the award between the two offerors. The Navy's rationale for doing so was that one of the two firms offered superior professional staff experience--but at a higher price--and while its superior staff competence was required for the more complex tasks (and thus was worth the price premium), it was not required for the less complex tasks. On June 4, the Navy awarded contracts to SSAI and Eagle. DISCUSSION CDS first challenges the agency's decision to "bundle" the requirements into one procurement instead of issuing multiple solicitations for individual tasks. This contention is untimely. The agency's "bundling" approach was apparent from the face of the RFP. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protest grounds that concern an alleged impropriety in a solicitation must be filed before the closing time for receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1996). Here, proposals were due by April 4, 1995. Accordingly, CDS's current protest, filed on July 3, 1996, is untimely on this ground.