BNUMBER:  B-276465.6, B-276465.7 
DATE:  July 28, 1997
TITLE: Southwest Engineering Associates; Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc.,
B-276465.6, B-276465.7, July 28, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Southwest Engineering Associates; Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc.

File:     B-276465.6, B-276465.7

Date:July 28, 1997

Michael Huerta for Southwest Engineering Associates and Ronald L. 
Walter for Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc., the protesters.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

General Accounting Office will not consider protests filed subsequent 
to the dismissal of initial protests for failing to file timely 
comments on the agency report where the subsequent protests request 
resolution of the same matters at issue in the initial protests.

DECISION

Southwest Engineering Associates and Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc. 
protest the cancellation of solicitation No. DATM01-96-R-0005, issued 
by the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Operational Test and Evaluation 
Command (OPTEC) Contracting Activity, for test support services for 
the Air Defense Artillery Test Directorate, Fort Bliss, Texas.  The 
protesters contend that the agency issued an order for these services 
to Computer Data Systems, Inc. (CDSI) under that firm's General 
Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, which 
constitutes an improper withdrawal of the requirement from the Small 
Business Administration's 8(a) program.

We dismiss the protests.

Both of these protesters previously protested the agency's 
cancellation of the solicitation, the withdrawal of the requirement 
from the 8(a) program, the alleged issuance of a work order to CDSI, 
and related alleged improprieties concerning CDSI's actions prior to 
the cancellation.[1]  In its report responding to these protests, the 
agency stated its basis for cancelling the solicitation (i.e., changed 
requirements), and for withdrawing the requirement from the 8(a) 
program (i.e., fair market prices not available from 8(a) 
contractors).  The agency also stated that no order had been issued to 
CDSI and that the agency was considering what would be the best means 
for procuring the requirement, including issuing an order under CDSI's 
FSS contract.  The report also refuted the related allegations of 
impropriety.

On May 15, 1997, we dismissed both protests because neither protester 
filed comments within 10 days of receiving the agency report, as 
required by section 21.3(i) of our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.3(i) (1997).  We subsequently affirmed our dismissals of these 
protests.

On July 11, Southwest Engineering again protested the agency's 
cancellation of the solicitation, the withdrawal of the requirement 
from the 8(a) program, the alleged issuance of an order to CDSI for 
the requirement, and related alleged improprieties concerning CDSI's 
actions prior to the cancellation.  On July 17, Gutierrez-Palmenberg 
filed a nearly identical protest.  The protesters essentially contend 
that an order issued subsequent to the dismissals of their initial 
protests creates a new basis to protest the agency's withdrawal of the 
requirement from the 8(a) program.  We disagree.

The initial protests alleged that the OPTEC Contracting Activity 
improperly withdrew the requirements from the 8(a) program and that 
the agency's intention not to procure the requirement under the 8(a) 
program violated applicable regulations.  Part of the support for 
these protests was the allegation that the agency was considering or 
proceeding with procurement of the requirement from CDSI, an 
alternative source to the 8(a) program.  Each subsequent instance of 
the agency considering an alternative source, or acquiring services 
from an alternative source, only confirms that the requirement has 
been withdrawn from the 8(a) program--an event which the agency had 
acknowledged, explained, and defended in its report on the initial 
protests.  The protests do not assert any new grounds for finding that 
the withdrawal of the requirement from the 8(a) program was improper, 
and thus do not establish a new and independent basis for protest.  
See New Beginnings Treatment Center, Inc.--Recon., B-252517.2 
B-252517.3, Apr. 29, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  349 at 3.

The dual purpose of our filing rules is to give parties a fair 
opportunity to present their cases and to resolve protests 
expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement 
process.  Air Inc.--Recon., B-238220.2, Jan. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  129 
at 2.  Both Southwest Engineering and Gutierrez-Palmenberg had a full 
and fair opportunity to pursue all of their protest bases before our 
Office during their initial protests.  Accepting such a refiling of a 
previously dismissed protest could, for example, permit a protester 
that neglected its obligation to comment or express interest in the 
protests to forestall a contract award or otherwise delay a 
procurement simply by resubmitting its earlier protest or comments as 
a new protest.  This result would clearly be inconsistent with fair, 
orderly, and expeditious contracting, and would impair timely 
resolution of protests.  A protester who fails to comment on the 
agency report or express interest in the protest in a timely fashion, 
in effect, has abandoned its protest for our purposes, and will not be 
permitted to resubmit previously untimely comments as a new protest or 
otherwise revive the complaint.  Pacific Lighting Energy Sys., 65 
Comp. Gen. 13 (1985), 85-2 CPD  para.  381; Adak Communications Sys., 
Inc.--Recon., B-228450.3, B-228450.4, Apr. 18, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  373.

The protests are dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Gutierrez-Palmenberg's initial protest also stated other grounds 
for protest related specifically to the issuance of an order under 
Computer Data's FSS contract which were not asserted in either of the 
present protests.