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/gaobabjia0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A lv LLL MMPM'*k9 k %- -P:
-r-
0 /0 Z..
UNrI:D STATES GENERAL ACCOUNING OFFICE
WASFIN'40.N, D.C. 20549
Q,-]CC o GEERAL COO,.L.
3-23 1630.2 Junq 29, 1983
Thie Honorable Jeremiah DeitoWj V - .,
United States Senator
Suite 510
101 Governors Drive, 8,F,,
Huntsville, Alabama 35B01
Dear Senator Denton;
In your let.ter of June 9; 198'3 t4nsmitting a letter
from Integrated Communication 4 P4echnbiogy, cno, (ICT), you
requost our findlngs and views concerning 4 mpatter -raised by
ICT, Prior to coptacting your q.ffice, ICT had raised the
matter with our Cffice, ICT rVqhestgd Anm opinion from our
Office, as to thepropriety of 9ipossikle ,ubmission of a1
offer under Unltead- ttes Army4,yamile. v6mx.d-.reques--for
PropophhAs No 1)AMrI-S3-R-A304'bj, a firm employtng a con-
tractor whose empeloyment ICT bel* ved should preolude the
participation of that firm in the 'procurement under Appendix
11G (Avoidance of Organiz,,tional Conflicts of Interest),
Rule 4, of the Defense Acquisition Regulition (1976 ed.),
and the terms of the solicitation.,
In our letter of June 2, 1983, to I(T;. we stated that
under 31 U.S.C. § 74 (1976), our Office has the statutory
authortty to issue advisory or adVance ojdn'onsionly to cer-
tain Government officials, Further, we r-ioted that, if the
question posed by ICT could be interpreted at a bid protest,
our Bid Protest Procedures, 4 C.F,R, part .1 '(ipJ), are
reserved only for the consideration of wether ail award or
proposed award of a contract coiplies with statutory, regu-
latory, or other legal requirements., Since ICT did not
allege that an award bad been made or was proposed contrary
to the above requlation, we did not consider the inatter a
bid protest.
We now understand that ICT did not submit an, offer on
the procurement. Our Bid Protest Procedures, 4 C.F.R.
§ 21,1(a) (1983), require that a bid protest must be filed
by an interested party. Since ICT did not submit an offer
V N
kwlk- - - Ml% i . - .,,
A 1 1
1 4.
Li - I i I i. I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobabjia0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)