BNUMBER:  B-275871
DATE:  February 28, 1997
TITLE:  Professional Rehabilitation Consultants, Inc.

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

Matter of:Professional Rehabilitation Consultants, Inc.

File:     B-275871

Date:February 28, 1997

Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Dorn C. McGrath III, Esq., Holland & 
Knight, for the protester.
Jeanne Anderson, Esq., and Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Department of 
Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Post-debriefing protest of contracting agency's evaluation of 
proposals is dismissed as untimely where protester failed to request 
its debriefing until 2 months after it was informed that it had not 
received award; a protester's affirmative obligation to diligently 
pursue information that forms the basis for its protest extends to the 
diligent pursuit of a debriefing, which must be requested within a 
reasonable period of time. 

DECISION

Professional Rehabilitation Consultants, Inc. (PRC) protests the award 
of contracts to Professional Rehabilitation and Occupational Services 
& Associates (PROS) and to Gallagher and Associates under request for 
proposals No. 623-20-96, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) for vocational rehabilitation services.  PRC principally argues 
that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

The solicitation anticipated the award of multiple fixed-price 
contracts for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to 
veterans in the state of Oklahoma.  Two line items under the base year 
and under each option year sought counseling services in connection 
with the training and rehabilitation of veterans with 
service-connected disabilities.  Contracts would be awarded to those 
firms whose offers were evaluated as being most advantageous to the 
government.  VA's evaluation of the proposals it received resulted in 
awards to PROS and Gallagher for the line items at issue here.

By letter dated October 1, 1996, VA informed PRC that the contracts 
had been awarded to these other firms.  There is no evidence that PRC 
had any contact with the agency until more than 2 months later, 
December 12, when PRC requested a debriefing.  During its December 23 
debriefing, PRC was advised that the central weakness of its proposal 
was its failure to adequately describe the work experience of its 
counselor.  PRC's December 26 protest principally challenged this 
conclusion.  
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)); Automated Medical Prods. Corp., 
B-275835, Feb. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.     .

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.--Recon., B-238220.2, Jan. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  129.  
In this regard, protesters have an affirmative obligation to 
diligently pursue information that forms the basis for their protests.  
If they do not do so within a reasonable time, we will dismiss the 
protest as untimely.  Horizon Trading Co., Inc.; Drexel Heritage 
Furnishings, Inc., B-231177; B-231177.2, July 26, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  86; 
see also General Physics Federal Sys. Inc., B-274795, Jan. 6, 1997, 
97-1 CPD  para.  8.

Since this procurement was conducted on the basis of competitive 
proposals, PRC was entitled to request and receive a post-award 
debriefing.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.1004 (FAC 90-27).  
The requirement to diligently pursue the information on which a 
protest is based includes diligently pursuing a debriefing, which 
allows protesters to determine whether they have a basis for protest 
and, if so, what it is.  Unicom Sys. Inc., B-222601.4, Sept. 15, 1986, 
86-2 CPD  para.  297.  We do not consider PRC's delay of more than 2 
months--from the October 1 date of the notice of award to the December 
12 request for a debriefing--to be diligent pursuit.[1]  Id.

PRC appears to argue that the concept of due diligence no longer 
applies to debriefings since, under our recently revised regulations, 
we will not consider a protest challenging a procurement conducted on 
the basis of competitive proposals where a debriefing is requested and 
required if filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester.  
Section 21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. supra; The Real Estate Center, 
B-274081, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  74.  The protester is mistaken.  
We cannot permit the timing of the protest process to be governed by a 
protester's discretionary decision to delay seeking a debriefing.  
Such a rule would severely compromise the ability of our Office to 
expeditiously and fairly resolve protest controversies without unduly 
delaying or disrupting the competitive procurement process.  See 
Technology Management and Analysis Corp., B-256313.3; B-256313.5, May 
9, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  299.  Due diligence in this case means not that 
PRC should have filed its protest before its debriefing, but that the 
firm should have requested its debriefing within a reasonable period 
of time.  Indeed, the regulation cited by PRC was designed, in part, 
to encourage early and meaningful debriefings.  61 Fed. Reg. 39040.  

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. PRC 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 PRC within 5 days of receiving the firm's request, 
if practicable.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253b(e) (1994).