B-298408, WareOnEarth Communications, Inc., July 11, 2006

B-298408 Jul 11, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights WareOnEarth Communications, Inc. (WCI) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1019-04-R-0008, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization-Pacific (DITCO). Specifically, WCI challenges the agency's issuance of amendments altering the basis for the agency's price evaluation. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision B-298408, WareOnEarth Communications, Inc., July 11, 2006 Decision Matter of: WareOnEarth Communications, Inc. File: B-298408 Date: July 11, 2006 David W. Burgett, Esq., Allison D. Pugsley, Esq., and Brian C.J. Berry, Esq., Hogan & Hartson LLP, for the protester. JoAnn W. Melesky, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's issuance of amendments changing basis of price evaluation is dismissed as untimely where protest was not filed before the time set for receipt of revised proposals. DECISION WareOnEarth Communications, Inc. (WCI) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1019-04-R-0008, issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization -- Pacific (DITCO). Specifically, WCI challenges the agency's issuance of amendments altering the basis for the agency's price evaluation. We dismiss the protest as untimely. The agency issued the RFP on June 9, 2005, for various telecommunications services for military installations throughout the state of Hawaii, referred to as the –Joint Hawaii Information Transfer System (JHITS),— which encompasses –switched voice and data services, Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) services, dedicated transmission (point-to-point and multi-point) as well as optional services for the maintenance of Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) and intra-base Outside Plant (OSP) cable including fiber optic cable.— Agency's Comments on Timeliness at 2. The RFP contemplates the award of a contract with a period of performance up to 10 years in length (6-year base period with a 3-year option period, plus an additional 1-year option period). As it relates to the protest, the RFP required offerors to submit prices for approximately 7,600 contract line item numbers and sub-line item numbers (CLIN/SLIN) covering all required services over the 10 years of potential contract performance. Each offeror's price was to be evaluated based on a –Discounted Life Cycle Cost (DLCC)— calculated for the life of the contract. As explained by the parties, the DLCC was to be based on the sum of all nonrecurring and recurring costs for all CLINs/SLINs with future year costs discounted to present value based on a table of discount factors provided by the agency. The agency also provided offerors with a software application which automatically calculated their total prices based on each offeror's price data. Final proposals were due on April 20, 2006. After receiving final proposals, the agency issued two additional amendments to the solicitation on Thursday, June 1, amendments 14 and 15, which are the subject of this protest. Principally, these amendments changed the basis for determining the offerors' DLCCs by deleting various CLINs/SLINs from the calculation.[1] While indicating that the revised DLCC pricing scheme –should not result in changes to the offerors' proposed pricing,— the agency requested offerors to provide their new proposed total DLCCs by 4 p.m. on Monday, June 5. RFP amend. 0014, at 2. WCI timely submitted its revised DLCC, which consisted of 2 pages, to the agency both electronically and via mail. Subsequently, on June 12, WCI filed the subject protest challenging the revised basis for calculating offerors' DLCCs as set forth in amendments 14 and 15. (June 12 was the first business day following the tenth day after WCI received notice of the amendments (June 11), which fell on a Sunday.) In its protest WCI argues that the agency lacked a legitimate reason or rational basis for reducing the scope of the cost evaluation and that even if such reasons existed, there was no compelling reason to revise the solicitation after receipt and evaluation of final proposals.[2] Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules requiring timely submission of protests. Challenges to alleged solicitation improprieties that did not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation, such as WCI's challenges to amendments 14 and 15, must be filed prior to the next closing time for receipt of proposals. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2006).