HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptafzi0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
Matter of: Fumigadora Popular, S.A.
File: B-276676
Date: April 21, 1997
Jed L. Babbin, Esq., Tighe, Patton, Tabackman & Babbin, L.L.C., for the protester.
Diane D. Hayden, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Post-debriefing protest of rejection of bid as unreasonably low is untimely under the
Bid Protest Regulations where it was filed more than 10 days after the protester
received written notice from the agency of the basis for rejection of its bid; since
the procurement was not conducted on the basis of competitive proposals, the
timeliness rules based on requested and required debriefings are not applicable.
DECISION
Fumigadora Popular, S.A., protests the rejection of its bid as unreasonably low by
the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Resident
Officer in Charge of Construction, Panama Canal Area, under invitation for bids
(IFB) No. N62470-96-B-4189, for pest control services.
We dismiss the protest.
At the November 20, 1996, bid opening, the bids ranged in price from Fumigadora's
low bid of $70,782 to a high bid of $950,000. The Navy's estimate was $230,000.
Shortly after bid opening, the Navy asked Fumigadora to confirm its bid price,
which it did on December 16. In follow-up letters to the Navy dated December 17
and December 26, Fumigadora explained that it was able to provide the services for
the low price because it was attempting to expand its business and its overhead
costs were already absorbed by its subcontracts with an Army contractor.
On March 13, 1997, the protester inquired of the Navy as to the status of contract
award. The following day, March 14, the protester received by facsimile
transmission a copy of a letter addressed to Fumigadora from the contracting
officer, which was dated February 13, stating that:
[a]lthough your firm was considered to have the expertise necessary
to perform the work outlined in the specification, your bid has been](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptafzi0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)