New SI, LLC, B-295209; B-295209.2; B-295209.3, November 22, 2004

New SI, LLC, B-295209; B-295209.2; B-295209.3, November 22, 2004 TITLE: New SI, LLC, B-295209; B-295209.2; B-295209.3, November 22, 2004 BNUMBER: B-295209; B-295209.2; B-295209.3 DATE: November 22, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: New SI, LLC File: B-295209; B-295209.2; B-295209.3 Date: November 22, 2004 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., and Lisanne E. S. Cottington, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for the protester. David R. Hazelton, Esq., Edward J. Shapiro, Esq., Tammi D. Walker, Esq., and Gregory A. Harris, Esq., Latham & Watkins, for Orbimage, Inc., an intervenor. Howard Phifer, Esq., and William R. Medsger, Esq., National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Absent clear indication from agency that scheduled debriefing session was considered to be extended pending agency's response to questions that protester might pose following the session, the debriefing is presumed to have ended at the conclusion of the session; protester's posing questions to agency after the session concluded therefore did not extend time for filing a bid protest, and protest filed more than 10 days after the session thus is dismissed as untimely. DECISION New SI, LLC protests the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) award of a contract to Orbimage, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. HM1573-04-R-0002, for NextView commercial satellite imagery services. New SI challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal. We dismiss the protest. On September 30, 2004, New SI was notified of the award to Orbimage. Later that day, New SI submitted a written request to the agency for a debriefing. NGA provided a debriefing on October 6, during which New SI was advised of the agency's evaluation process, the ratings and scores on the factor and subfactor level for New SI's proposal, and the weaknesses, strengths and risk assessments for New SI's proposal. In addition, the agency answered a number of questions asked by New SI. The next day, October 7, New SI submitted written questions to the agency. The agency furnished a response on October 15. On October 20, New SI filed this protest with our Office, contending that its proposal improperly was downgraded under the solicitation's [DELETED] evaluation factor for a perceived weakness with respect to [DELETED], since that weakness already had been taken into account under the [DELETED] evaluation factor. NGA requests that we dismiss the protest as untimely, since it was filed 14 days after New SI's debriefing session on October 6. New SI responds that October 6 should not be the point from which timeliness is measured, since the debriefing did not provide the information on which its protest is based and, in any case, was not complete until October 15, when the agency provided responses to the protester's October 7 questions. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests. Under these rules, a protest 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, with an exception for protests that challenge a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required. 4A C.F.R. SA 21.2(a)(2) (2004). In such cases, protests must be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held. Id. We agree with the agency that, since New SI's protest was not filed with our Office until more than 10 days after the debriefing session concluded, it is untimely. First, contrary, to New SI's assertion, it is clear from the October 7 written questions that the protester was made aware of the basis for its October 20 protest during the October 6 debriefing. Specifically, New SI referred to the issue of improper double-counting, asking that the agency [p]lease explain in detail the Government's rationale for downgrading the New SI proposal ratings in both the [DELETED] based upon the identical perceived risk associated with New SI's [DELETED]. It appears as if we were inappropriately downgraded . . . in at least two areas for the identical perceived deficiency. New SI Questions, Oct. 7, 2004, Question No. 7. Thus, New SI was on notice from the debriefing session that [DELETED] had been considered under both the [DELETED] and [DELETED] evaluation factors, the action challenged as improper in its protest. Further, we do not agree that the debriefing was essentially ongoing pending the agency's answering the protester's October 7 questions.