BNUMBER:  B-277366 
DATE:  July 30, 1997
TITLE: SRS Technologies, B-277366, July 30, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:SRS Technologies

File:     B-277366

Date:July 30, 1997

Alan M. Grayson, Esq., and Laura J. Mann, Esq., Alan M. Grayson & 
Associates, for the protester.
Richard J. Webber, Esq., Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, for 
Hernandez Engineering, Inc., an intervenor.
John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Scott Riback, Esq., and John Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest based on alleged violation of Procurement Integrity Act is 
untimely where (1) protester initially advised agency of alleged 
violation within 14 days; (2) agency advised protester on same day 
that it believed its actions were proper; and (3) protester did not 
file protest at General Accounting Office within 10 days after 
receiving notice of agency's position.

DECISION

SRS Technologies protests the actions of the Department of the Air 
Force in connection with request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F04684-97-R-0007, for ground systems safety analysis services at 
Vandenberg Air Force Base.  SRS challenges the proposed award to 
Hernandez Engineering, Inc. (HEI) on the basis that the agency 
improperly made SRS's proprietary information available to HEI and 
other firms prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals.

We dismiss the protest as untimely filed.

The RFP, issued on February 20, 1997, advised prospective offerors 
that there was a "reading library" available for firms to use in 
preparing their proposals.  According to the protester, it became 
aware on March 7 that its allegedly proprietary 
information--specifically, a copy of its 1992 contract for the same 
requirement--was available in the reading library for all competitors 
to review; also on March 7, the protester observed that 
representatives of the awardee had been to the reading library and 
presumably had reviewed the information at issue.  SRS contacted the 
cognizant contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) on 
March 10 and conveyed its view that the materials in the reading 
library were proprietary and had been marked as such, and that their 
release was therefore improper. 

The COTR advised SRS on March 10 that the contracting officer believed 
it was proper to release the materials.  Without further discussion of 
the matter, SRS submitted its proposal on April 3.   Thereafter, on 
June 16, the agency advised SRS that it had selected HEI as the 
apparent successful offeror.  SRS protested the proposed award to our 
Office on June 26, maintaining that the agency improperly had released 
SRS's allegedly proprietary information and had thereby afforded HEI 
an improper competitive advantage in violation of the Procurement 
Integrity Act (the Act),  41 U.S.C.A.  sec.  423 (West Supp. 1997), and 
that HEI also had violated the Act by receiving the information.

Both our Bid Protest Regulations and the Act require--as a condition 
precedent to our considering the matter--that a protester have 
reported the alleged violation of the Act to the contracting agency 
within 14 days after becoming aware of the information or facts giving 
rise to the alleged violation.  41 U.S.C.A.  sec.  423(g); 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.5(d) (1997).  The 14-day reporting requirement affords the agency 
an opportunity to investigate alleged improper action during the 
conduct of an acquisition and, in appropriate circumstances, to take 
remedial action before completing the tainted procurement.  See 41 
U.S.C.A.  sec.  423(e)(3).

SRS complied with this requirement by advising the agency of the 
alleged violation on March 10.  SRS then was advised on that same day 
that the agency believed the disclosure of the firm's 1992 contract 
was proper.  Upon receipt of this notice, SRS was fully aware of all 
information necessary to formulate its protest allegations.  SRS 
therefore was required to file its protest concerning the alleged 
violation of the Act in our Office within 10 days after March 10.  4 
C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2).  We note that application of our timeliness rules 
here serves the policy objective of the Act's     14-day reporting 
requirement discussed above.  Since SRS did not file until June 26, 
well after the 10-day deadline, its protest is untimely and will not 
be considered.

SRS contends that it was not required to protest until it learned the 
awardee's identity since, until that time, it did not know that a 
party which had received the information would be in line for award.  
This argument is without merit.  The alleged violation of the Act is 
the agency's disclosure of the 1992 contract, which allegedly would 
provide other offerors with an improper competitive advantage over 
SRS.  Once SRS learned of this disclosure, it was required to promptly 
pursue its protest grounds arising from it (after reporting it to the 
agency); it did not have the option of permitting an allegedly tainted 
procurement to proceed to award, and then protesting only upon 
learning that award had been made to another offeror.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States