Matter of:Fumigadora Popular, S.A.

B-276676 Apr 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Post-debriefing protest of rejection of bid as unreasonably low is untimely under the Bid Protest Regulations where it was filed more than 10 days after the protester received written notice from the agency of the basis for rejection of its bid. Since the procurement was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals. The timeliness rules based on requested and required debriefings are not applicable. The Navy's estimate was $230. Fumigadora explained that it was able to provide the services for the low price because it was attempting to expand its business and its overhead costs were already absorbed by its subcontracts with an Army contractor. Which was dated February 13. Stating that: "[a]lthough your firm was considered to have the expertise necessary to perform the work outlined in the specification. View Decision Matter of: Fumigadora Popular, S.A. File: B-276676 Date: April 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Fumigadora Popular, S.A., protests the rejection of its bid as unreasonably low by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Resident Officer in Charge of Construction, Panama Canal Area, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62470-96-B-4189, for pest control services. We dismiss the protest. At the November 20, 1996, bid opening, the bids ranged in price from Fumigadora's low bid of $70,782 to a high bid of $950,000. The Navy's estimate was $230,000. Shortly after bid opening, the Navy asked Fumigadora to confirm its bid price, which it did on December 16. In follow-up letters to the Navy dated December 17 and December 26, Fumigadora explained that it was able to provide the services for the low price because it was attempting to expand its business and its overhead costs were already absorbed by its subcontracts with an Army contractor. On March 13, 1997, the protester inquired of the Navy as to the status of contract award. The following day, March 14, the protester received by facsimile transmission a copy of a letter addressed to Fumigadora from the contracting officer, which was dated February 13, stating that: "[a]lthough your firm was considered to have the expertise necessary to perform the work outlined in the specification, your bid has been rejected because your extremely low bid amount is not a fair and reasonable price as it is evident that the costs to perform the work required by the contract exceed your bid price. You have indicated in correspondence that many of your overhead costs, including labor salaries are being covered by other contracts." The letter also stated that the contract had been awarded to TNT Control de Plagas. Fumigadora had not received the letter earlier because the letter had apparently been mailed to the wrong address. Following its March 14 receipt of the contracting officer's letter, Fumigadora requested a debriefing, which the Navy provided on March 31. According to Fumigadora, Navy officials stated at the debriefing that they had rejected the bid because they were "uncertain that the company could perform at its low price if it should lose the jobs that it is performing on subcontracts for an Army contractor that entail the same kind of work as that covered by the Navy contract in question." Fumigadora filed its protest with our Office on April 4, contending that none of the criteria of Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 14.404-2 pertaining to the rejection of individual bids were applicable here or cited by the Navy as a reason for rejecting Fumigadora's bid. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. Under these rules, a protest such as Fumigadora's, based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation, must be filed not later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier; in the case of a protest challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required, a protest filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held will be timely. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1997). These timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without disrupting or delaying the procurement process. Professional Rehabilitation Consultants, Inc., B-275871, Feb. 28, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 94. Fumigadora contends that it did not learn of the basis for its protest until the March 31 debriefing, and since it filed its protest on April 4, its protest was timely filed within 10 calendar days of when it knew the basis of its protest, as required.