DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: July 27, 2011 
CBCA 2460 
ALPINE ARMORING INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Fred Khoroushi, President of Alpine Armoring, Inc., Herndon, VA, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Lee W. Crook, III and Erin Hustetler, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services 
Administration, Fort, Worth, TX, Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT , STEEL, and SHERIDAN . 
SHERIDAN, Board Judge. 
This appeal arises out of General Services Administration (GSA) e-Buy request for 
quotation (RFQ) 514988 for light armored vehicles. GSA awarded the resultant contract, 
GS-07F-9561S, on November 9, 2010. Appellant, Alpine Armoring, Inc. (Alpine), which 
submitted a proposal, was not the awardee. 
On November 15, 2010, Alpine contacted the contracting officer via e-mail to ask 
some questions about the scoring on the awarded contract. The contracting officer responded 
to those questions on November 16, 2010. Correspondence ensued in which Alpine sought 
the scorecard data and the contracting officer refused to release the data, asserting it was 

 
         
             
             
           
          
 
             
             
                
            
             
             
               
     
            
            
             
        
            
                 
               
             
       
             
              
              
          
               
         
         
             
2 CBCA 2460 
considered “source selection information.” Several e-mail messages were exchanged 
between Alpine and the contracting officer in which Alpine sought other information on how 
the contract was awarded. These messages culminated on February 8, 2011, with the 
contracting officer referring Alpine to the applicable protest clauses incorporated into the 
RFQ’s terms and conditions, including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.233-2 and 
FAR 52.233-3. 
On June 13, 2011, Alpine requested a copy of “the contracting officer’s final decision 
regarding our dispute on GSA e-Buy RFQ 514988.” The contracting officer wrote back 
stating: 
A protest must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known 
and should contain a detailed statement of legal and factual grounds. Award 
for this procurement was made on November 9, 2010. A reference to the 
potential filing of a protest was made on February 2, 2011, nearly 3 months 
after the date of award. No protest was filed within the prescribed time period. 
Any alleged protest is considered untimely. 
On June 14, 2011, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals received Alpine’s notice 
of appeal in which Alpine referenced the June 13 response from the contracting officer and 
alleged Alpine had requested and been refused a contracting officer’s final decision. The 
Board docketed the appeal as CBCA 2460. 
Discussion 
A review of the documents submitted with the appeal revealed that appellant appeared 
to be disputing the award of a contract, and therefore, any remedy it had was through the bid 
protest arena. The Board ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded by sending several pieces of its 
correspondence with GSA together with its proposal. 
Based on the documents provided by Alpine, we conclude that the matter before us 
is in the nature of a bid protest.  As we stated in Innovative (PBX) Telephone Services, Inc. 
v. Department of Veterans Affairs , CBCA 12, et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,685, at 166,765: 
The CDA [Contract Disputes Act] limits our jurisdiction to contracts between 
the Government and a contractor. 41 U.S.C. § 602 (2000). We do not have 
jurisdiction over bid protests because bid protests, by definition, involve 
disputes between the Government and disappointed bidders. Thomas Creek 
Lumber & Log Co. , IBCA 3917, et al., 05-2 BCA ¶ 32,976; Coyne Textile 

 
          
            
        
   
 
 
    
  
3 CBCA 2460 
Services , AGBCA 97-104-1, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,626 (1996); see also Charles 
Hartlerode , ASBCA 52634, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,716 (2001); 4 CFR pt. 21 (2007). 
Decision 
This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION . 
________________________ 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
____________________________ _________________________ 
CATHERINE B. HYATT CANDIDA S. STEEL 
Board Judge Board Judge