General Physics Federal Systems, Inc.

B-274795 Jan 06, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army contract award for education and training support services, contending that the: (1) awardee improperly proposed a government school as a subcontractor and intended to substitute another subcontractor; (2) Army should have made award to the protester based on initial proposals; and (3) discussions with the awardee were improper due to prohibited technical leveling and technical transfusion. GAO held that the protester: (1) untimely filed its protest more than 10 days after it knew the basis of protest; and (2) failed to diligently pursue the information necessary to advance its protest. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed. View Decision Matter of: General Physics Federal Systems, Inc. File: B-274795 Date: January 6, 1997 Protest against acceptance of offer that included proposal to use as a subcontractor the United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School (USDAGS) is dismissed as untimely; record shows that protester was advised at time of award that successful offeror proposed to use USDAGS to perform contract, and was further advised of the agency's position that this was legally permissible, but failed to diligently pursue publically available information that may have established basis for protest at that time. Protest contentions based on information obtained by protester in connection with other untimely allegations are dismissed as untimely; had protester diligently pursued original basis for protest, information allegedly supporting additional arguments would have been obtained earlier and additional arguments would have been raised at that time. Attorneys DECISION General Physics Federal Systems, Inc. (GPFS) protests the award of a contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-96-D-0033, issued by the Department of the Army for services in connection with various education and training programs. GPFS principally maintains that SAIC improperly proposed The United States Department of Agriculture Graduate School (USDAGS) as a subcontractor, and now intends to substitute another subcontractor. We dismiss the protest as untimely. The Army awarded this contract to SAIC on May 10, 1996, and notified the unsuccessful offerors by letter of that same date, which also included a listing of SAIC's subcontractors, including the USDAGS. On May 16, the protester was provided a debriefing, during which (and in another telephone call conducted immediately thereafter) the protester's representative and agency officials discussed whether the USDAGS was authorized to perform as a subcontractor for SAIC; the agency advised the protester of its view that this was permissible and provided the firm with copies of several decisions of our Office that the agency believed supported its view. The protester states that on September 17 it was asked by representatives of SAIC whether it was interested in performing the portion of the contract that originally was to be performed by the USDAGS. GPFS states that it also learned at about this time that the agency intended to execute a modification to SAIC's contract that was beyond its original scope. Based on this information, GPFS filed this protest, arguing that SAIC proposed, and was evaluated on the basis of using, the USDAGS as a subcontractor, but that it now plans to switch to a different subcontractor. [1] GPFS asserts that both SAIC and the agency knew that SAIC would not use the USDAGS to perform because the USDAGS' charter did not permit it to perform as a subcontractor. GPFS also alleged for the first time in its comments responding to the agency report that the Army had improperly failed to make award to GPFS on the basis of initial proposals, and that the discussions with SAIC were improper due to prohibited technical leveling and/or technical transfusion. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests, and those protests based on other than alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew or should have known of its basis for protest, whichever is earlier. Bid Protest Regulations, Sec. 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2)). Moreover, a protester has an affirmative obligation to diligently pursue information that forms the basis for its protest and must do so in a reasonably expedient manner considering the circumstances of the case. Technology Management & Analysis Corp., B-256313.3; B-256313.5, May 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 299. GPFS failed to diligently pursue the information necessary to advance its protest. At the heart of GPFS's protest is its assertion that the agency and SAIC knew or should have known--i.e., that it was foreseeable--prior to award that the USDAGS could not perform as a subcontractor.