BNUMBER:  B-275835
DATE:  February 3, 1997
TITLE:  Automated Medical Products Corporation

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

Matter of:Automated Medical Products Corporation

File:     B-275835

Date:February 3, 1997

Jacob N. Erlich, Esq., and William M. Simmons, Esq., Perkins, Smith & 
Cohen, LLP for the protester.
J. Albert Calluso, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where protester filed its protest based on information received 
approximately 4 months after award pursuant to a Freedom of 
Information Act request, protester did not diligently pursue its basis 
for protest because it could have received the same information 
forming its basis for protest if it had requested, as contemplated by 
statute and regulation, a post-award debriefing.

DECISION

Automated Medical Products Corporation (AMPC) protests the award of a 
contract to International Hospital Supply Company (IHSC) under request 
for proposals (RFP) No. SPO200-96-R-8029, issued by the Defense 
Personnel Support Center, Defense Logistics Agency, for retractor 
holder sets, as identified by a commercial item number.  AMPC 
maintains that IHSC's item fails to conform to the requirements of the 
solicitation.

We dismiss the protest.

The agency awarded the contract to IHSC as the low-priced, technically 
acceptable offeror on August 23, 1996.  On August 30, after receiving 
the notice of award, AMPC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
request with the agency for "all available information regarding this 
award including, but not limited to, the full specifications 
submitted, drawings submitted, testing analysis, point of 
manufacturing, etc."  On September 9, AMPC filed an agency-level 
protest challenging the award to IHSC on the basis of its low price.  
AMPC also alleged that the award to IHSC violates patents held by AMPC 
and that the agency should conduct a pre-award survey of IHSC.  AMPC 
did not request a post-award debriefing.

By letter dated December 12, the agency denied AMPC's agency-level 
protest.  On December 20, the agency released to AMPC, pursuant to its 
FOIA request, the requested drawings.  The drawings did not contain 
confidential information.  On December 26, AMPC filed this protest 
with our Office "based solely on the [FOIA] materials provided by [the 
agency] on December 20, 1996," contending that "the device being 
furnished by the awardee is not the item required by the [RFP]."[1]

The agency argues that this protest is untimely because AMPC did not 
diligently pursue its basis for protest, that is, AMPC did not request 
a post-award debriefing where it could have obtained from the agency 
the same or similar information ultimately released by the agency 
pursuant to the firm's FOIA request, which formed AMPC's basis for 
protest.  The agency states that had AMPC availed itself of the 
debriefing process, the agency would have explained in a timely manner 
after award why IHSC's proposal, but not AMPC's proposal, was selected 
for award, thereby providing AMPC with the same or similar information 
as that released to the firm under FOIA.  We agree with the agency 
that by not requesting a post-award debriefing, and instead making a 
FOIA request, AMPC did not diligently pursue its basis for protest.

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 not later 
than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, 
of the basis for protest, whichever is earlier; however, in the case 
of a protest 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, section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to 
be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)); The Real Estate Center, 
B-274081, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  74.

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 this regard, a protester may not passively await 
the receipt of information providing a basis for protest; rather, the 
protester has an affirmative obligation to diligently pursue 
information which may form a basis for protest.  Horizon Trading Co., 
Inc.; Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc., B-231177; B-231177.2, July 
26, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  86.  When information is obtainable through 
alternative means, a protester's failure to utilize the most 
expeditious approach may constitute a failure to diligently pursue 
that information.  See, e.g., Thomas May Constr. Co., B-255683, Mar. 
23, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  210 (protester did not diligently pursue its 
basis for protest where it waited until after it received the notice 
of award to pursue under FOIA information forming its basis for 
protest, although the same information was publicly available at bid 
opening).  

Here, the procurement was conducted on the basis of competitive 
proposals.  Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.1004 (FAC 
90-37), AMPC was entitled to request and receive a post-award 
debriefing.  (AMPC could have requested, in writing, a debriefing 
within 3 days of receiving the agency's notice of award and the agency 
would have been required to debrief AMPC within 5 days of receiving 
the firm's request, if practicable.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2305(b)(5) (1994)).  
Since the agency was procuring a commercial end item, at such 
debriefing AMPC would have been entitled to learn the make and model 
of the item to be delivered by IHSC and to receive a summary of the 
agency's rationale for the award to IHSC and "reasonable responses to 
relevant questions" concerning the agency's conduct of this 
procurement.  FAR  sec.  15.1004(d).  Although the protester asserts that 
it had no reason to request a debriefing because there was nothing it 
could expect to learn from a debriefing since award was based on low 
price, its FOIA request indicates that it did seek information about 
its competitor's offer beyond what it knew from the notice of award.  
While FAR  sec.  15.1004(d) sets forth the minimum information that an 
agency is to provide in a debriefing, the FAR does not preclude an 
agency from providing additional information.  Thus, while the agency 
could not reveal at the debriefing any information exempt from release 
under FOIA, it could have responded to questions about drawings 
associated with IHSC's proposal, and ultimately could have released to 
AMPC the same non-confidential drawings that were subsequently 
released to the firm pursuant to its FOIA request.   In this regard, 
the agency reports that if a debriefing had been requested one would 
have been held "in a timely fashion . . . and [such debriefing] would 
have provided [the protester] with the same or similar information 
releasable under FOIA." 

Accordingly, it appears that the information forming AMPC's basis for 
protest was obtainable through the debriefing process far sooner than 
it was obtainable (and provided) under the FOIA request.  That being 
so, we must conclude that AMPC did not avail itself of the most 
expeditious means to obtain the desired information.  Since almost 4 
months elapsed between the award date and AMPC's receipt of the 
agency's response to its FOIA request, we conclude that AMPC did not 
diligently pursue this information and that to consider AMPC's protest 
would be inconsistent with our goal of resolving protests 
expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the agency's 
procurement process.  In short, we consider the protest to be 
untimely.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. AMPC did not raise in its protest to our Office the issues it 
raised in its agency-level protest.