Minotaur Engineering, B-276843, May 22, 1997

B-276843 May 22, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where protester challenges a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals where a debriefing is requested and. Is required. Award is made to Televoice Inc. of Houston. "The offer which was submitted by [Minotaur] has been rejected. This was necessary since the [standard form] (SF) 33 (Solicitation. Offer and Award) was not returned nor were there any documents provided indicating that [Minotaur's] proposal was a binding offer.". The protester also asserts that the award to Televoice at a total price higher than Minotaur proposed was improper. Or should have known. Whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. Since it is undisputed that Minotaur received that letter on April 7. Minotaur was required to have filed its protest no later than 10 days after that date. View Decision Matter of: Minotaur Engineering File: B-276843 Date: May 22, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Minotaur Engineering protests the award of a contract to Televoice, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 516-048-97, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a toll-free integrated voice response system using dual tone multi-frequency signaling to disseminate information on VA-acquired properties in Florida. We dismiss the protest. Section B of the RFP required that offerors submit a price for a one-time charge for applications, development, and set up; a unit and a total price for service charges for a base period of 6 months; unit and total prices for each of two 1-year option periods; and a grand total price. Section M of the RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: total cost; capability; and qualifications, and stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal received the "highest combined score" based on the evaluation of proposals. On April 7, 1997, Minotaur received the VA's "NOTICE OF AWARD" letter stating as follows: "Based on the offers received in this office on March 12, 1997, award is made to Televoice Inc. of Houston, Texas, in the amount of $4,800.00 [for the base period]. . . . "The offer which was submitted by [Minotaur] has been rejected. This was necessary since the [standard form] (SF) 33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) was not returned nor were there any documents provided indicating that [Minotaur's] proposal was a binding offer." On April 17, Minotaur requested a copy of the abstract of offers; the contracting officer furnished the abstract on April 18. Minotaur filed this protest in our Office on April 23, challenging the rejection of its proposal. The protester also asserts that the award to Televoice at a total price higher than Minotaur proposed was improper. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed no later than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1997). The VA's "NOTICE OF AWARD" letter clearly informed Minotaur why the VA rejected its proposal, thus providing Minotaur with a basis for protest. Since it is undisputed that Minotaur received that letter on April 7, to be timely, Minotaur was required to have filed its protest no later than 10 days after that date, or by April 17. Minotaur's protest, filed in our Office on April 23, is therefore untimely, and will not be considered. [1] Minotaur argues that its protest is timely pursuant to the exception to the 10-day timeliness rule for filing protests challenging a negotiated procurement provided for in 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2), which states: "Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required. In such cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have been known either before or as a result of the debriefing, the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held." (Emphasis added.) Minotaur contends that its request for the abstract of offers should be considered a debriefing request, which, under this provision, extended the period for filing its protest challenging the rejection of its proposal. Minotaur argues, therefore, that its protest, filed on April 23, within "10 days after the date on which the debriefing [was] held"--i.e., after the date it received the abstract of offers--should be considered timely.