2000 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 162; 2000 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P173

 2000 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 162; 2000 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P173

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: PAGE NUMBERS APPEARING IN BOLD BRACKETS, [CPD 1], REFLECT THE OFFICIAL PAGINATION OF THE U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL PROCUREMENT DECISIONS.][CPD 1] 

DECISION

United International Investigative Services, Inc. (UIIS) protests the bases for the United States Marshals Service's exclusion of UIIS's proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-00-R-0005 to provide court security services. We dismiss the protest as untimely.

BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2000, the agency issued RFP No. MS-00-R-0005 seeking proposals to provide court security services in the 7th and 9th judicial circuits. ¹ On May 10, UIIS submitted its proposal responding to this solicitation. Thereafter, the agency evaluated UIIS's proposal as having various deficiencies with regard to, among other things,  [*2]  contract management and past performance. On June 8, the agency notified [CPD 2] UIIS that its proposal had not been included in the competitive range. UIIS responded by letter dated June 9, stating:

In accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation] FAR 15.505, United Investigative Services Inc. requests a debriefing in response to the Government's determination of exclusion of UIIS from the competitive range . . . . As provided in FAR 15.505(a)(2), UIIS requests that this debriefing be delayed until after award.

Letter from UIIS to Contracting Officer (June 9, 2000).

Consistent with UIIS's request, the agency did not schedule a pre-award debriefing. On September 13, the agency awarded contracts for court security services in both judicial circuits to another offeror. Thereafter, the agency provided UIIS with a written debriefing, received by UIIS on September 19, in which the agency identified the various proposal deficiencies which had led to exclusion of UIIS's proposal from the competitive range. On September 22, UIIS filed this protest challenging the agency's evaluation of its [*3]  proposal.

The agency requests that UIIS's proposal be dismissed as untimely, arguing among other things, that by specifically requesting that the agency delay any debriefing until after a contract had been awarded, UIIS failed to diligently pursue the information on which its protest is based. The agency notes that, in requesting the post award debriefing, UIIS specifically referenced the FAR provision which warns offerors that such requests for delayed debriefings "could affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to the debriefing." FAR § 15.505(a)(2). ²

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.