BNUMBER:  B-275046
DATE:  December 10, 1996
TITLE:  Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc.

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

Matter of:Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc.

File:     B-275046

Date:December 10, 1996

Aryeh Trabelsi for the protester.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., John E. Lariccia, Esq., and Ricke D. 
Hamilton, Esq.,  Department of the Air Force, 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

Protest to the General Accounting Office (GAO) will not be considered 
where it is preceded by an initial agency-level protest that was not 
timely filed within 14-day time period established by applicable 
Federal Acquisition Regulation provisions notwithstanding that protest 
was filed within 10 days of written debriefing; under Bid Protest 
Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(3), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(3)), where the contracting agency 
imposes a more stringent time period for filing than the time limits 
for filing a protest with GAO, the agency's time for filing will 
control.

DECISION

Orbit Advanced Technologies, Inc. protests the Department of the Air 
Force's rejection of its proposal as unacceptable under request for 
proposals No. F42650-96-R-3320, for a near-field antenna measurement 
system. 

We dismiss the protest because the initial protest to the agency was 
not timely filed.

By letter dated June 14, 1996, the Air Force advised Orbit that its 
"proposal has been found to be unacceptable in that it fails to 
conform to the essential requirements of the Statement of Work" (SOW).  
Specifically, Orbit was advised that its proposed antenna measurement 
system failed to conform with paragraph 3.2.1.5.1 of the SOW--which 
required that the system's "mechanical structure shall be capable of 
being mounted onto a Government designed and fabricated structure that 
is capable of being tilted up to 47 degrees from vertical"--because 
the system was "too massive to attach to one of the Government's 
support structures."  In a letter dated June 26, the Air Force further 
explained to Orbit that its proposal was unacceptable because it 
included a fixed height support structure incorporating a tilt 
mechanism in its scanner design and the support structure was too tall 
to fit into any of the buildings being considered to house the system; 
the agency advised that the SOW had specified a government-designed 
tilt structure--rather than a contractor-furnished one--specifically 
to allow the system to be positioned at different heights to scan 
antennas mounted on various vehicles.  

Although the agency's June 26 letter afforded Orbit "an additional 
opportunity to provide an acceptable technical proposal," Orbit's 
subsequent revised proposal included suggestions such as digging a pit 
in the agency's test building or removing antennas from the vehicles 
for testing as a means of overcoming the agency's size concerns, but 
apparently did not offer to eliminate Orbit's built-in tilt mechanism.  
As a result, the agency viewed the proposal as unacceptable; Orbit was 
advised by letter dated July 25 why its proposed revisions were 
unsatisfactory and of the agency's overall determination that its 
proposal was "not technically acceptable, nor capable of being made 
technically acceptable."  When Orbit then questioned specific elements 
of the agency's determination of unacceptability, and raised the 
possibility of filing a protest, the Air Force responded on August 6 
that the evaluators had "once again thoroughly reviewed your technical 
submissions in an effort to keep you in the competitive arena.  
However, as you will see from the attached final determinations and 
findings, this is not possible."  On August 8, Orbit requested "a 
formal debriefing" in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  15.1004.  A written debriefing was furnished by letter dated 
August 30, and on September 6 Orbit filed an agency-level protest 
challenging the determination of unacceptability.  Upon learning on 
September 30 that its agency-level protest had been denied, Orbit 
filed this protest with our Office (on October 10) again challenging 
the determination of unacceptability. 

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 no later 
than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, 
of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier, except that in the 
case of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of 
competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when 
requested, is required, a protest filed not later than 10 days after 
the date on which the debriefing is held will be timely.  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)).  Further, our Regulations provide 
that a matter initially protested to the agency will be considered 
only if the initial protest to the agency was filed within the time 
limits for filing a protest with our Office, unless the contracting 
agency imposes a more stringent time for filing, in which case the 
agency's time for filing will control.  Section 21.2(a)(3), 61 Fed. 
Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(3)); Tandy Constr., 
Inc., B-238619, Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  206.

These timeliness 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.  Air Inc.--Request for Recon., B-238220.2, Jan. 29, 1990, 
90-1 CPD  para.  129.  In order to prevent the timeliness rules from 
becoming meaningless, exceptions are strictly construed and rarely 
used.  Id.

The record establishes that Orbit's initial agency-level protest was 
untimely; a protest to the contracting agency based on other than 
alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed not later than 
14 calendar days after the basis for protest was known or should have 
been known, whichever is earlier.  FAR  sec.  33.101 and 33.103.  The Air 
Force advised Orbit by letter dated July 25 of the basis for its 
determination that Orbit's proposal was "not technically acceptable, 
nor capable of being made technically acceptable," and unequivocally 
reaffirmed that view in its August 6 letter, but Orbit did not file 
its agency-level protest until September 6, more than 14 days later.  
Orbit notes that its protest was filed 10 days after the written 
August 30 debriefing, and that our Bid Protest Regulations provide for 
consideration of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the 
basis of competitive proposals which are filed not later than 10 days 
after a required debriefing is held.  Under the facts here, however, 
the applicable FAR provisions establish a more stringent time 
period--14 days after the basis for protest was known with no 
consideration given to the time of a debriefing--for filing an 
agency-level protest, and thus it is the FAR timeliness provisions 
which control.

While Orbit claims that the contracting officer agreed during an 
August 6 telephone conference call to hold a "Technical Interchange 
Meeting" and explains that it "felt that direct technical discussions 
with the Government would lead to our being found technically 
acceptable," there is no indication in the record that the 
determination of unacceptability and consequent elimination of its 
proposal from further consideration had been suspended and that Orbit 
would be afforded the opportunity again (as it was after the initial 
June 14 determination of unacceptability) to revise its proposal.  
Rather, the record indicates that Orbit itself recognized that its 
proposal remained unacceptable even after the August 6 telephone 
conference; according to the protester, "[b]ased on the positive 
content of the discussion Orbit made a decision not to propose a 
protest as a remedy to our situation of being found technically 
unacceptable."  Further, the fact that Orbit requested a formal 
debriefing on August 8 confirms that it understood that its proposal 
was no longer under consideration for this procurement.  While Orbit 
may have contemplated pursuing the matter further with the agency in 
the hopes of subsequently convincing the agency to alter its position, 
this in no way suspended the applicable timeliness requirement.  See 
generally Tandy Constr., Inc., supra.  Thus, Orbit's failure to file 
its agency-level protest within 14 days after the basis for protest 
was known renders that protest untimely, and we will not consider its 
subsequent protest to our Office.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States