Warrior Service Company

B-417491 May 13, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Warrior Service Company (WSC), of Valley Stream, New York, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protests the time to submit quotations allotted by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24419Q0515 for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS), brand name or equal, Carendo Shower Chairs. The protester argues that the RFQ did not provide enough time to prepare a quotation and the brand name or equal requirement unduly restricts competition. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Warrior Service Company File:  B-417491 Date:  May 13, 2019 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., Frank V. Reilly Attorney at Law, for the protester. Kathleen Ellis, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging alleged improprieties in a solicitation is dismissed as untimely where the protest was not filed before the time set for receipt of quotations, even though in this instance, the solicitation required that vendors respond five days after issuance of the request for quotations, and the protest was filed within ten days of when the solicitation was issued; while our Office has recognized an exception to the requirement to challenge alleged solicitation improprieties in cases where an agency has used an extremely limited response time, our prior cases do not support the use of this exception when a vendor has five days before quotations are due, and thus five days to file any protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Warrior Service Company (WSC), of Valley Stream, New York, a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB), protests the time to submit quotations allotted by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C24419Q0515 for commercially available off‑the‑shelf (COTS), brand name or equal, Carendo Shower Chairs.  The protester argues that the RFQ did not provide enough time to prepare a quotation and the brand name or equal requirement unduly restricts competition.  We dismiss the protest as untimely.  Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests.  These rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process.  Verizon Wireless, B‑406854, B‑406854.2, Sept. 17, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 260 at 3‑4.  Our timeliness rules specifically require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing time for receipt of initial quotations be filed before that time.  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); CTIS Inc., B‑414852, Oct. 3, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 309 at 5 n.7; see AmaTerra Envtl. Inc., B‑408290.2, Oct. 23, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 242 at 3.  Here, the solicitation was issued on April 3, 2019, and it required vendors to submit quotations by April 8, 2019.  Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 1, RFQ at 1.  Six vendors submitted quotations prior to the RFQ closing.  Req. for Dismissal at 2.  WSC submitted its protest, alleging improprieties in the solicitation, on April 15, 2019.  Protest at 1.  Accordingly, the agency asserts that the protest alleging solicitation improprieties is clearly untimely because it was not filled before the RFQ closing.  Req. for Dismissal at 2‑3.  We agree. WSC contends, however, that the VA cannot shorten the solicitation response time such that the 10 day time period to file a protest at GAO is eliminated.  Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 2.  WSC argues that our Office has recognized an exception to our timeliness rules when, as a result of extremely limited time periods, circumstances do not permit filing a protest before the solicitation closes.  Id. at 3 (citing The Big Picture Company, B‑210535, Feb. 17, 1983, 83‑1 CPD ¶ 166).  In The Big Picture Company, we found that the protester did not have a reasonable opportunity to file a protest when the protester had not received the amendment containing the alleged defects until one day before bid opening.  The Big Picture Co., supra, at 2.  Specifically, in that circumstance, we stated, “since Big Picture did not receive the amendment until 1 day before bid opening, we believe that [section] 21.2(b)(1) is inapplicable because Big Picture did not have a reasonable opportunity to file its protest before bid opening.”  Id. (citing to a provision of an earlier version of our Bid Protest Regulations).  WSC asserts this exception should apply here, and its protest‑‑filed 10 days after the RFQ was posted‑‑is timely.  Resp. to Req.