DISMISSED FOR UNTIMELINESS: September 11, 1992
                                                  
        
 
                             GSBCA 11997-P
 
 
                   SPREAD INFORMATION SCIENCES, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                 Respondent.
 
 
 
        Jeff Wang, President  of Spread Information Sciences,  Inc.,
   Bayside, NY, appearing for Protester.
 
        Col. Riggs L. Wilks, Jr.,  Maj. Charles R. Marvin, Jr., Maj.
   Karl M. Ellcessor,  III, and Capt. Sophia L.  Rafatjah, Office of
   the Chief Trial Attorney, Department  of the Army, Arlington, VA,
   counsel for Respondent.  
 
   Before Board Judges HENDLEY, PARKER, and VERGILIO.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        On  January 3, 1992, respondent, the Department of the Army,
   issued Solicitation  No. DABT60-91-R-0046,  a  100 percent  small
   business  set-aside,  to   buy  computer  emulation  boards   and
   software.  Motion to Dismiss as Untimely, Attachment 1 (September
   10, 1992).   After receiving offers on March  6, 1992, respondent
   held  discussions with  protester,  Spread Information  Sciences,
   Inc., and other offerors during  April 1992.  Id., Attachments 4,
   6.  However, respondent  ultimately rejected protester's proposal
   as technically deficient on May 27, 1992.  Id., Attachment 6.
 
        Protester  initially complained  of  its  rejection  to  the
   agency  by letter  dated June  3,  1992, id.,  Attachment 8,  and
   amended that  "agency  protest" by  letter dated  July 10,  1992.
   Id., Attachment 9.  Respondent denied the protest by letter dated
   July  23, 1992, which protester received  on July 27, 1992.  Id.,
   Attachment 1.  In that letter, respondent stated that protester's
   proposal   failed   to   satisfy   the   solicitation's   minimum
   requirements.     Id.,  Attachment  10.     Approximately  thirty
   working-days  later, Spread filed  this protest, on  September 4,
   1992.  No new issues were raised.
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        Rule 5(b)(3)(iii) states that:
 
        If a protest has been filed  initially with the agency,
        any subsequent  protest to  the Board  filed within  10
        days  of   formal  notification   of,   or  actual   or
        constructive  knowledge  of,   initial  adverse  agency
        action will  be considered,  provided that the  initial
        protest to the agency was filed in  accordance with the
        applicable time limits  in subparagraphs (b)(3)(i)  and
        (ii) of this rule.[foot #] 1
 
        Here,  protester, by waiting longer than ten "working" days,
   Rule 2(c), to  file this complaint with the  Board, stepped afoul
   of our timeliness  rules.  We enforce the  rules strictly here so
   that,  after  a set  time,  both the  Government  and prospective
   contractors may enjoy  repose to continue with  their procurement
   unhindered.     Trimble   Navigation,   Ltd.  v.   Department  of
   Transportation,  GSBCA 11653-P,  92-1 BCA    24,761, at  123,552,
   1992  BPD   36,  at 4-5;  Leica,  Inc., GSBCA  10816-P, 91-1  BCA
     23,305, at 116,869, 1990 BPD   286, at 3.  
                                Decision
 
        For the reasons  stated above, this protest is  DISMISSED AS
   UNTIMELY, in accordance with respondent's motion.
 
                                      _____________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     Rule  5(b)(3)(i)  provides   a  deadline  for
   protesting  the terms of  a solicitation, while  Rule 5(b)(3)(ii)
   requires a protester not wishing  to complain first to the agency
   to file  with  the Board  within  ten days  after the  basis  for
   protest is  known,  or  should  have  been  known,  whichever  is
   earlier.  Since  protester's rather sketchy letter  to respondent
   dated  June  3,  1992,  at   least  gave  the  agency  notice  of
   protester's displeasure, and  respondent has not complained  of a
   Rule 5(b)(3)(ii) violation, we will deem protester's filing of  a
   complaint with the agency to be timely.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   We concur:
   _____________________________      _____________________________
   JAMES W. HENDLEY                   JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge