BNUMBER:  B-275999.2
DATE:  February 12, 1997
TITLE:  Siebe Environmental Controls

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

Matter of:Siebe Environmental Controls

File:     B-275999.2

Date:February 12, 1997

Robert G. Watt, Esq., Marybeth Z. Gaul, Esq., and Timothy E. 
Heffernan, Esq., Watt, Tieder & Hoffar, L.L.P, for the protester.
Steven W. Feldman, Esq., for the agency.
Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 
participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

General Accounting Office (GAO) will not consider a protest that is 
based on the protester's belief that it has been and would be a good 
contractor and that it submitted a proposal that met all necessary 
criteria at a low price, so that the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range cannot be reasonable, since a valid protest for 
purposes of GAO's Bid Protest our Regulations must include a detailed 
statement of the legal and factual protest grounds.  The protester 
should diligently pursue information that would form a valid basis for 
protest through other than the bid protest process, e.g., by 
requesting a debriefing or by a request pursuant to the Freedom of 
Information Act.

DECISION

Siebe Environmental Controls protests the exclusion of the firm's 
proposal from the competitive range under Corps of Engineers request 
for proposals No. DACA87-96-R-0025.  We dismiss the protest. 

The Corps notified Siebe of the rejection of the proposal by letter of 
January 2, 1997, which the firm received on January 13.  The letter 
simply advised that Siebe's proposal was determined to be outside the 
competitive range, containing "various deficiencies and weaknesses 
which preclude you from having a reasonable chance for award."  Siebe 
protested to our Office on January 17, arguing that, "Upon information 
and belief, Siebe's offer represents the best value to the Government 
and met all of the factors or evaluation criteria set forth in the 
solicitation for award."  Siebe further maintained that "Upon 
information and belief, the Contracting Officer's basis for excluding 
Siebe from the competitive range is unsupportable," and that the 
Corps's action therefore "is in violation of law and regulation."

We dismissed Siebe's protest on January 23 because a mere allegation 
of improper agency evaluation, made "on information and belief" 
without any supporting explanation or documentation, does not satisfy 
the requirement in our Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.1(c)(4) and (f), 
61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.1(c)(4) and (f)), that a protester provide a detailed statement of 
legal and factual grounds for protest.  We further stated that if the 
agency provides Siebe with information that forms the basis for a 
valid bid protest, the firm may file with our Office at that time. 

Siebe re-filed on January 23, still within the 10-day period after 
having received the Corps's rejection letter,[1] in an attempt to cure 
the initial filing's deficiency.  Siebe states that it is the 
incumbent contractor for the work, and performs similar work under 
other contracts.  Siebe contends that based on its "personal 
knowledge" of the solicitation, its own proposal and past performance, 
and its knowledge of the costs of the work, the Corps simply had to 
have wrongly eliminated the firm's offer from the competitive range.

Siebe's January 23 filing does not satisfy our Regulations.  We 
recognize that Siebe is in a difficult position in that it does not 
know why its proposal has been excluded from further consideration 
other than the offer contained "various deficiencies and weaknesses" 
that precluded Siebe from having a "reasonable chance for award."  
Nevertheless, the requirement in our Regulations on which our January 
23 dismissal of Siebe's first protest was based contemplates that a 
protester will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence 
sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood that the 
protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action.  Robert 
Wall Edge--Recon., 68 Comp. Gen. 352 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  335.  This 
means that we will not accept for further development a protest by a 
firm that has yet to discover why its proposal has been rejected, but 
believes there simply can be no rational basis for no longer 
considering the offer.  In such case, the firm must diligently pursue 
the reasons for the agency's action by, for example, requesting a 
debriefing or submitting a request to the agency under the Freedom of 
Information Act.  Our Regulations do not permit pursuit of a basis for 
protest through our bid protest process.  See Alascom, Inc.--Second 
Recon., B-250407.4, May 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  411.  

The crux of Siebe's protest filing is the firm's belief that it has 
been and would be a good contractor, and that it submitted a proposal 
that met all necessary criteria at a low price, so that the exclusion 
of its proposal from the competitive range cannot be reasonable.  For 
purposes of our Regulations, however, a valid protest of an evaluation 
must include an allegation supported by an explanation of how the 
proposal evaluation was improper.  Federal Computer Int'l 
Corp.--Recon., 
B-257618.2, July 14, 1994, 94-2  para.  24.  In this regard, we understand 
from the Corps that it will not conduct any preaward debriefings in 
this procurement, so that Siebe may not be able to secure the 
necessary information until after any award.  Siebe then will have 10 
days to protest to our Office, consistent with our timeliness rules.  
Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. supra (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)). 

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Our Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. Reg. supra (to be codified 
at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)), require that a protest of other than an 
apparent solicitation impropriety be filed within 10 days after the 
protester knows or should know its protest basis.