TITLE: B-310822.2, Goel Services, Inc., May 23, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310822.2
DATE: May 23, 2008
*********************************************
B-310822.2, Goel Services, Inc., May 23, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Goel Services, Inc.

   File: B-310822.2

   Date: May 23, 2008

   Abiye Tibebe, Esq., Quagliano & Seeger, PC, for the protester.
   Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., and Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd
   LLP, for Grunley Construction Company, the intervenor.
   Timothy C. Tozer, Esq., General Services Administration, Public Buildings
   Service, for the agency.
   Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protester's contention that the agency failed to apply the Historically
   Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) price evaluation preference is
   denied where the solicitation did not include the HUBZone price evaluation
   preference; to the extent the protester argues that the preference should
   have been included in the solicitation, the protest is untimely as the
   protester did not challenge the terms of the solicitation until after the
   agency made an award.

   DECISION

   Goel Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Grunley
   Construction Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No.
   GS-11P-07-MKC-0093 issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for
   construction services. Goel contends that GSA improperly failed to apply
   the HUBZone price evaluation preference to the bids received which
   prevented the firm from receiving the award.

   We deny the protest.

   The IFB, issued on September 6, 2007 and amended several times, called for
   the demolition and construction of a security screening area at a
   Department of State federal building in Washington, DC. By the October 18
   bid opening date, the agency received four timely bids.[1] The total bid
   prices were as follows: Sigal Construction Corporation, $4,360,819;
   Grunley, $6,507,000; Southern Insulation, $6,532,000; and Goel,
   $7,129,692. Sigal subsequently was authorized by the agency to withdraw
   its bid, and on January 16, 2008, award was made to Grunley. By letter
   dated that same day, the agency notified Goel of the award and this
   protest followed.

   In its initial protest, Goel challenges the award to Grunley alleging that
   under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 19.1308 the agency should
   have applied a 10 percent price evaluation preference for HUBZone firms
   such as itself, and argues that, with the preference, it would have been
   next in line for award. In answer to the protest, the agency advised Goel,
   and our Office, that the solicitation mistakenly failed to include the
   clause implementing the HUBZone price evaluation preference. Agency
   Request for Dismissal at 1. Goel replies that even if the solicitation did
   not include the clause, the agency was required to apply the price
   preference here.

   We disagree. Given that the agency did not include the clause in its
   solicitation, the agency did not violate the terms of the solicitation by
   failing to apply the preference. In addition, despite the protester's
   arguments to the contrary, there is no requirement that mandatory
   provisions must be incorporated into solicitations by operation of law
   when they have been omitted. See American Imaging Serv., Inc.--Recon.,
   B-250861.2, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 13 at 2 (involving a mandatory
   preference for small disadvantaged business concerns); see also Parsons
   Precision Prod., Inc., B-249940, Dec. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 431 at 6
   (involving omission of a clause implementing the Prompt Payment Act).

   Moreover, to the extent the protester is now arguing that the HUBZone
   price evaluation preference should have been included in the solicitation,
   the protest is untimely. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules
   for the timely submission of protests. They specifically require that a
   protest based upon alleged improprieties apparent on the face of the
   solicitation, such as Goel's challenge to GSA's failure to include the
   HUBZone price evaluation preference in the solicitation,[2] must be filed
   prior to bid opening. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2
   (a)(1) (2008). Applying this rule, Goel's protest is untimely since it was
   not filed before the October 18, 2007 bid opening date.

   Goel argues, however, that our regulations permit us to consider an
   untimely protest "for good cause shown" or where we determine that a
   protest raises issues significant to the procurement system. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(c). We conclude that neither exception is appropriate here.

   Our 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
   at 2. In order to prevent these rules from becoming meaningless,
   exceptions are strictly construed and rarely used. Id. The "good cause"
   exception is limited to circumstances where some compelling reason beyond
   the protester's control prevents the protester from filing a timely
   protest. Dontas Painting Co., B-226797, May 6, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 484 at
   2. The significant issue exception is limited to untimely protests that
   raise issues of widespread interest to the procurement community, and
   which have not been considered on the merits in a prior decision.
   Schleicher Cmty. Corps. Ctr., Inc., B-270499.3 et al., Apr. 18, 1996, 96-1
   CPD para. 192 at 7.

   Here, Goel has offered no compelling reason for its failure to protest
   prior to bid opening, thus the "good cause" exception has no application.
   We also see nothing in the record to suggest that Goel's protest issue is
   of widespread interest to the procurement community warranting its
   resolution in the context of an otherwise untimely protest. As a
   consequence, we decline to address this protest issue here.

   Finally, we note that Goel raises another basis of protest for the first
   time in its March 4, 2008, opposition to the agency's request for
   dismissal of the protest. Specifically, Goel states that the IFB included
   a price evaluation preference for small disadvantaged business (SDB)
   concerns on which Goel relied to its detriment. According to the
   protester, had the agency applied the statutorily required HUBZone 10
   percent price evaluation preference that GSA "concededly failed to include
   in the [s]olicitation" or the SDB 10 percent price evaluation adjustment
   "erroneously included in the [s]olicitation, Goel would be the low
   responsive bidder" entitled to the award. Protester's Opposition to Agency
   Request to Dismiss at 2, 3-7. However, the protester acknowledges, and GSA
   agrees, that the SDB price evaluation preference was erroneously included
   in this solicitation because the SDB preference does not apply to civilian
   agencies. FAR sect. 19.1102(a).

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] GSA rejected as late a bid received from Biscayne Contractors, Inc.
   after being informed by Goel that it believed the Biscayne bid was late.
   Protester's Opposition to Agency's Request to Dismiss at 5. On November
   16, 2007, Biscayne filed a protest with our Office which was subsequently
   withdrawn (B-310822).

   [2] A contracting agency is required to include FAR sect. 52.219-4, notice
   of price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns, in
   solicitations using full and open competition procedures. FAR sect.
   19.1308(b).