________________________________________________________
 
        GSBCA 12581-P DISMISSED FOR LACK OF AN INTERESTED PARTY:
                            October 7, 1993
        ________________________________________________________
 
 
                         GSBCA 12581-P, 12592-P
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                        UNITEK TECHNOLOGY INC.,
 
                                           Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                  and
 
                       DUNN COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                  and
 
                              QSOFT, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Shelton H.  Skolnick, Judy D.  Leishman, and Amy M.  Hall of
   Skolnick    &    Leishman,     Derwood,    MD,    counsel     for
   Protester/Intervenor Integrated Systems Group, Inc.
 
        Eugene  D.  Rossel,  President  of  Unitek Technology  Inc.,
   Ontario, CA, appearing for Protester/Intervenor Unitek Technology
   Inc.
 
        Thomas  P.  Dunn, President  of  Dunn Computer  Corporation,
   Sterling, VA, appearing for Intervenor Dunn Computer Corporation.
 
        S. N.  Mohanty, President of  QSOFT, Inc., Dunn  Loring, VA,
   appearing for Intervenor QSOFT, Inc.
 
        Vaughn  Hill, Annaliese Impink, and Herman J. Narcho, Office
   of  the Solicitor, Department  of Labor, Washington,  DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges HENDLEY, HYATT, and GOODMAN.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        On  September 20, 1993, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG)
   protested  respondent's  award,  on  September  17,  1993,  of  a
   contract  to CompuAdd Corporation for the procurement of personal
   computers and peripherals.  Respondent has moved for dismissal of
   the protest.    For the  reasons  stated, we  grant  respondent's
   motion.
 
                               Background
 
        Respondent,  the Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
   Administration (MHSA), issued request  for proposals (RFP) number
   S2732002 on February 10, 1993.  The  RFP sought proposals for the
   procurement  of  four  hundred  486/33   personal  computers  and
   peripherals.   The closing  date for initial  proposals was March
   31,  1993.    Eighteen  prospective  contractors, including  ISG,
   submitted proposals.
 
        After  reviewing the proposals  received in response  to the
   RFP,  the contracting officer determined that thirteen proposals,
   including that of ISG, were  outside of the competitive range for
   purposes  of  conducting  discussions  and  would  no  longer  be
   considered for award.  The  thirteen offerors were so informed by
   the contracting officer in letters dated June 3, 1993.  
 
        ISG received its letter on June 9, 1993.  The letter stated,
   in pertinent part:
 
        Your proposal . . . has fallen outside the  competitive
        range  based on your technical proposal which offered a
        [sic]   ISG  433D   Full   Tower   Workstation.     Our
        solicitation  calls for  a  desktop  system  unit.    A
        revised proposal will not be considered.
 
   ISG did  not file a  protest within ten  days of receipt  of this
   letter.  The  contracting officer conducted discussions  with the
   remaining offerors and solicited best and final offers. 
 
        On September 17,  1993, protester learned that  the contract
   had been  awarded to CompuAdd in  the amount of $1,399,148.   ISG
   filed its  protest  of the  award  on September  20, 1993.    The
   protest initially  alleged that  the award  was improper  because
   ISG's proposal  was technically  acceptable and  lower in  price.
   Subsequently,  ISG amended its  protest complaint to  allege that
   its exclusion from the competitive range was improper.
 
        On September 27, 1993, another firm, Unitek Technology Inc.,
   which had remained  in the competitive range and  had submitted a
   best and  final offer, also  protested the award decision  on the
   ground that  its offer  was technically acceptable  and lower  in
   price than the offer selected for award.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Respondent has  moved to dismiss the ISG protest because ISG
   failed to  challenge the  competitive range  determination within
   ten  working days of  receiving the contracting  officer's letter
   dated June 3.  Once the period for filing a timely protest of the
   competitive range decision  lapsed, respondent asserts,  ISG lost
   its   status  as  an  interested   party  with  respect  to  this
   procurement.
 
        ISG   responds  that  the   letter  it  received   from  the
   contracting officer was insufficient to  alert it to its basis of
   protest because of  the absence of any price  information in that
   letter.  ISG contends that only after it learned of the amount of
   the  award  was it  in  a  position  to conclude  the  regulatory
   requirements applicable  to a competitive range determination may
   have been  violated.  As such, ISG maintains that its protest was
   timely filed on September 20.
 
        The  Board has addressed similar situations in its decisions
   in Trimble Navigation Ltd. v. Department of Transportation, GSBCA
   11692-P, 93-1 BCA   25,341, 1992 BPD   62, and RMTC Systems, Inc.
   v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12249-P, 93-2 BCA   25,721, 1993
   BPD   30.   In Trimble Navigation Ltd., we found  the offeror had
   received  notification of  its elimination  from the  competitive
   range in a letter that stated its  proposal was deemed "not to be
   technically  acceptable."   The letter  further  stated that  the
   technical evaluation team had determined that the proposal failed
   to meet minimum requirements and would require a "major rewrite."
   The letter otherwise  contained no specific detail as  to why the
   proposal  was unacceptable.  Trimble waited approximately one and
   one-half months to file a protest.  93-1 BCA at 126,240, 1992 BPD
     62, at 4.
 
        The  Board  flatly  rejected  Trimble's  argument  that  the
   generic explanation  regarding  its  elimination  was  inadequate
   notice of its basis for protest, thus tolling the  ten day period
   established         under         the         Board's        Rule
   5(b)(3)(ii).[foot #] 1      Rather,   "where   an   offeror    is
   told it has been excluded  from the competitive range because its
   offer  is  technically  unacceptable, the  offeror  has  received
   sufficient notification of an adverse agency action and must file
   its protest within ten working days of such notification."   93-1
   BCA  at  126,241,  1992  BPD    62,  at  5.    In  reaching  this
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   48 CFR 6101.5(b)(3)(ii) (1992).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   conclusion, the Board  reasoned that to allow an  offeror to wait
   for an award decision and a post-award debriefing 
 
 
        could  severely prejudice  the  procurement process  by
        potentially  requiring  agencies  to   redo  months  of
        negotiations and  evaluations should  such a  protester
        prevail.  Such  a system would prejudice  other vendors
        as  well   and  unnecessarily   prolong--at  additional
        expense-- the  procurement process in  contravention of
        the  Brooks  Act's  stated support  for  the  "goals of
        economic and efficient procurement."
 
   Id. at 126,242, 1992 BPD   62, at 6-7.  
 
        ISG's  notification, if anything, was more explicit than the
   letter provided  to Trimble.  ISG was  pointedly told that it had
   been disqualified  because its proposed product did  not meet the
   specification for desktop units.  ISG did not timely protest this
   adverse action.   The lack of price information  is immaterial in
   these  circumstances.  Having  failed to protest  the competitive
   range   decision  in  a  timely  manner,   and  thus  having  not
   participated    in     the    subsequent    conduct     of    the
   procurement,[foot #] 2   ISG   is   no   longer   an   interested
   party  to pursue a protest of the  award decision.  RMTC Systems,
   Inc.,  93-2  BCA  at  127,997,  1993  BPD    30,  at  3;  Trimble
   Navigation, Ltd.,  93-2 BCA  at 126,240, 1992  BCA   62,  at 3-4;
   Berkshire Computer Products, GSBCA 11539-P, 92-1 BCA   24,587, at
   126,685-86, 1991 BPD   302, at 3-4.
 
                                Decision
 
        Respondent's  motion is GRANTED.  GSBCA 12581-P is DISMISSED
   FOR LACK OF AN INTERESTED PARTY.  
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2    Cf. Federal Data  Corp. v. United  States, 911
                      __  _____________________________________
   F.2d   699  (Fed.  Cir.   1990)  (offeror  which   withdrew  from
   procurement not an interested party to protest Government actions
   respecting subsequent conduct of the procurement process). 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   We concur:
   ______________________________     ______________________________
   JAMES W. HENDLEY                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge