BNUMBER:  B-274795
DATE:  January 6, 1997
TITLE:  General Physics Federal Systems, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:General Physics Federal Systems, Inc.

File:     B-274795

Date:January 6, 1997

William M. Weisberg, Esq., William T. Welch, Esq., and Monica C. Gray, 
Esq., Barton, Mountain & Tolle, for the protester.
James J. McCullough, Esq., Joel R. Feidelman, Esq., Catherine E. 
Pollack, Esq., and Lawrence E. Ruggiero, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, 
Shriver & Jacobson, for Science Applications International 
Corporation, an intervenor.
Edward L. Williamson, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, General Accounting Office, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest against acceptance of offer that included proposal to use 
as a subcontractor the United States Department of Agriculture 
Graduate School (USDAGS) is dismissed as untimely; record shows that 
protester was advised at time of award that successful offeror 
proposed to use USDAGS to perform contract, and was further advised of 
the agency's position that this was legally permissible, but failed to 
diligently pursue publically available information that may have 
established basis for protest at that time.

2.  Protest contentions based on information obtained by protester in 
connection with other untimely allegations are dismissed as untimely; 
had protester diligently pursued original basis for protest, 
information allegedly supporting additional arguments would have been 
obtained earlier and additional arguments would have been raised at 
that time.

DECISION

General Physics Federal Systems, Inc. (GPFS) protests the award of a 
contract to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. DASW01-96-D-0033, issued by the 
Department of the Army for services in connection with various 
education and training programs.  GPFS principally maintains that SAIC 
improperly proposed The United States Department of Agriculture 
Graduate School (USDAGS) as a subcontractor, and now intends to 
substitute another subcontractor.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

The Army awarded this contract to SAIC on May 10, 1996, and notified 
the unsuccessful offerors by letter of that same date, which also 
included a listing of SAIC's subcontractors, including the USDAGS.  On 
May 16, the protester was provided a debriefing, during which (and in 
another telephone call conducted immediately thereafter) the 
protester's representative and agency officials discussed whether the 
USDAGS was authorized to perform as a subcontractor for SAIC; the 
agency advised the protester of its view that this was permissible and 
provided the firm with copies of several decisions of our Office that 
the agency believed supported its view.

The protester states that on September 17 it was asked by 
representatives of SAIC whether it was interested in performing the 
portion of the contract that originally was to be performed by the 
USDAGS.  GPFS states that it also learned at about this time that the 
agency intended to execute a modification to SAIC's contract that was 
beyond its original scope.  Based on this information, GPFS filed this 
protest, arguing that SAIC proposed, and was evaluated on the basis of 
using, the USDAGS as a subcontractor, but that it now plans to switch 
to a different subcontractor.[1]  GPFS asserts that both SAIC and the 
agency knew that SAIC would not use the USDAGS to perform because the 
USDAGS' charter did not permit it to perform as a subcontractor.  GPFS 
also alleged for the first time in its comments responding to the 
agency report that the Army had improperly failed to make award to 
GPFS on the basis of initial proposals, and that the discussions with 
SAIC were improper due to prohibited technical leveling and/or 
technical transfusion.

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely 
submission of protests, and those protests based on other than alleged 
solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 calendar 
days after the protester knew or should have known of its basis for 
protest, whichever is earlier.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 
61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(2)).  Moreover, a protester has an affirmative obligation to 
diligently pursue information that forms the basis for its protest and 
must do so in a reasonably expedient manner considering the 
circumstances of the case.  Technology Management & Analysis Corp., 
B-256313.3; B-256313.5, May 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  299.  GPFS failed to 
diligently pursue the information necessary to advance its protest.  

At the heart of GPFS's protest is its assertion that the agency and 
SAIC knew or should have known--i.e., that it was foreseeable--prior 
to award that the USDAGS could not perform as a subcontractor.[2]  
However, this is an argument GPFS could and should have made shortly 
after its May debriefing and follow-up telephone conversations.  In 
this regard, neither of the decisions the Army cited in support of its 
position addressed the USDAGS' authority to subcontract with a 
government prime contractor, and both decisions, when read together 
with the cases cited therein,  effectively put GPFS on notice that 
USDAGS' authority is established in its charter.[3]  This being the 
case, it was unreasonable for GPFS merely to accept the Army's 
position without further examination or inquiry, by at least obtaining 
the charter.  GPFS itself states that a copy of the USDAGS charter is 
publicly available, and it included a copy of the charter with its 
comments on the agency report; the protester nevertheless waited 
approximately 4 months to obtain and examine a copy of the USDAGS' 
charter.  While USDAGS' withdrawal from the contract may have been the 
event which led GPFS to conclude that an improper change in 
subcontractors occurred and to investigate the matter further, had 
GPFS been diligent following the award it would have become aware of 
SAIC's need to switch subcontractors--and thus the basis for this 
protest argument--at that time.   We conclude that the protest is 
untimely at this juncture.[4]

GPFS' remaining allegations--that the agency should have made award on 
the basis of initial proposals and engaged in improper discussions 
with SAIC--also are untimely.  These arguments are based on 
information contained in the agency's report in response to GPFS' 
original protest.  Since that original protest was untimely for lack 
of diligent pursuit, it follows that these remaining allegations are 
untimely; had GPFS diligently pursued the information forming the 
basis for its original protest, it would have obtained much earlier 
the report information on which its additional arguments are founded.  
See Technology Management and Analysis Corp., supra (timeliness rules 
are not governed by the discretionary acts of the protester in, for 
example, intervening in another concern's protest and fortuitously 
discovering information that forms a basis for protest); see also 
Intercomp Co.--Recon., B-265638.2; B-265639.2, Feb. 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
110.  

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. SAIC also argued that the Army intended to execute an improper 
out-of-scope modification to the original contract, but it 
subsequently withdrew this allegation.

2. The basis for GPFS' assertion is its reading of the USDAGS' charter 
which, according to the protester, prohibits the USDAGS from acting as 
a subcontractor to a "for-profit" entity such as SAIC; in its 
pleadings, GPFS describes these actions as an improper "bait and 
switch" on the part of SAIC.  

3. We note in particular that our decision, Department of Agriculture 
Graduate School, 64 Comp. Gen. 110 (1984), specifically states that a 
nonappropriated funds instrumentality such as the USDAGS "may compete 
in and be awarded a contract under a competitive procurement unless 
otherwise precluded by its charter from doing so."  64 Comp. Gen. 
supra, at 112.  (Emphasis added.)

4. In Arthur Andersen LLP, B-274795.2, Nov. 25, 1996, an unpublished 
decision,  which concerned the same solicitation in issue here, we 
concluded, as we do here, that the protester failed to diligently 
pursue the issue of the propriety of SAIC's proposing the USDAGS as a 
subcontractor after being presented with the agency's position and 
supporting decisions.