DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: October 28, 1992 GSBCA 12086-P MICRO-TECH U.S.A., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Steve M. Gillani, Vice President of Micro-Tech U.S.A., Chicago, IL, appearing for Protester. Gregory E. Smith, COL, JA, and George W. Griffith, Office of the Chief Attorney, Defense Supply Service-Washington, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges NEILL, DANIELS, and VERGILIO. NEILL, Board Judge. This case involves a protest filed by Micro-Tech U.S.A. (protester) concerning request for proposals number MDA903-92-R- 0095 issued by the Defense Supply Service-Washington (respondent). For the reasons stated, we dismiss the protest for failure to state a valid basis of protest. Background Protester submitted a proposal on the subject solicitation. By letter dated September 24, 1992, protester was advised by respondent that it had been removed from the competitive range. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated September 30, respondent advised protester that the earlier letter of September 24 was "rescinded in its entirety" and that a determination had been made to cancel the solicitation. This same letter also advised protester that respondent would "re-evaluate its needs and may issue a solicitation redefining the requirement in detail at a later date." On October 6, protester filed the instant protest at the Board. The basis of this protest is that protester was unjustly disqualified from the competitive range in that the equipment protester proposed not only meets but also exceeds the solicitation requirements. Protest at 1, 3. Pursuant to Rule 8(c)(1), respondent has moved that this protest be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a valid basis of protest. Protester opposes the motion to dismiss on the grounds that respondent violated "rules and regulations . . . and the contracting laws," and that if the motion is granted it will send a message to other agencies that if they violate laws or regulations "there is always a way out by canceling the solicitation." Notice of Motion at 2. Discussion This protest was clearly filed after respondent rescinded the letter advising protester that it had been eliminated from the competitive range. Respondent has since confirmed, in response to a direct inquiry from the Board, that in rescinding the notice to protester, the contracting officer likewise considers that the competitive range determination which prompted that notice is no longer in effect or valid. This being the case, there is clearly no basis for this protest. The determination which prompted it is no longer in effect. During the first prehearing conference for this case, it became clear that protester's real dispute with respondent, at this point in time, concerns respondent's decision to cancel the solicitation. It has already been pointed out to protester, however, that this is a ground of protest altogether different from that alleged in this case.[foot #] 1 See Memorandum of Prehearing Conference dated October 8, 1992, at 2. Accordingly, this protest is dismissed with prejudice to its being filed again at this Board. In the event Micro-Tech prevails in its protest regarding the cancellation of the solicitation, this procurement may be reopened. However, the earlier competitive range determination which prompted this protest will no longer be in effect and any subsequent determination which might reject protester again from the competitive range would, of course, constitute a new ground of protest. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Since that prehearing conference, protester has filed a protest challenging respondent's cancellation of the solicitation. It has been docketed as GSBCA 12126-P. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Decision This protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a valid basis of protest. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _______________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge _______________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge