DISMISSED IN PART FOR FAILURE TO STATE A VALID BASIS OF PROTEST: January 24, 1994 GSBCA 12709-P TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and DULLES NETWORKING ASSOCIATES, INC., Intervenor. John A. McEwan, President of Technology Advancement Group, Inc., Chantilly, VA, appearing for Protester. Donald S. Safford, Office of General Counsel, Naval Regional Contracting Center Detachment, Long Beach, CA; and Anita M. LeBlanc, Office of General Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. B. David Whitehead, Vice President of Dulles Networking Associates, Inc., Sterling, VA, appearing for Intervenor. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and GOODMAN. DANIELS, Board Judge. In this protest, Technology Advancement Group, Inc. (TAG), alleges that the Department of the Navy did many things wrong in the conduct of a procurement for the supply of three Pentium processor computer systems. In an effort to understand everything that TAG had been saying in criticism of the Navy's actions, we issued a memorandum listing twenty-one separate counts. The parties have not objected to our characterization of the charges. TAG maintains generally that the Navy conducted inadequate discussions, revealed TAG's participation in the procurement to a competitor prior to requesting best and final offers, and improperly awarded the contract. The reasons that the awardee, Dulles Networking Associates, Inc. (DNA), should not have received the award, according to TAG, are that DNA (1) did not have a demonstrated capability to fulfill the agency's specified requirements and (2) submitted a false certificate of independent price determination. In addition, TAG charges that the Navy improperly granted an agency protest filed by DNA, mishandled a letter sent by TAG complaining that DNA should not receive the contract, relaxed technical specifications and delivery requirements after award, was not properly solicitous of TAG's concerns during the period of time after award had been made, and accepted misleading information provided by DNA relating to the delivery date. On January 14, 1994, after listing the allegations in the most rational means we could fashion, we issued an order directing TAG to show cause why the allegations described generally in the sentence immediately preceding this one should not be dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest. In the order, we provided the following explanation of our cause for concern. Statute vests this Board with authority to review, consequent to a protest, any decision by an agency which is "alleged to violate a statute or regulation." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) (1988). Consistent with this restriction, our rules require that a protest state, with regard to each of its allegations, "[c]itations to provisions of statute, regulation, or the delegation of procurement authority that the protester alleges were violated." Rule 7(b)(2)(vi).[foot #] 1 Citations to specific statutes and regulations always make the work of the Board and the other parties easier by directing attention to the laws at issue. We do not insist on technical compliance with our Rule, however, when we can "perceive clearly that if the alleged improprieties occurred, laws were violated." Richard S. Carson & Associates, Inc., GSBCA 9411-P, 88-2 BCA 20,685, at 104,547, 1988 BPD 53 at 2. On the other hand, we have dismissed protests which have not only been bereft of citations, but also -- and more importantly -- have failed to make allegations on the basis of which we could discern a violation of law. See, e.g., DSI Computer Services, GSBCA 9168-P, 87-3 BCA 20,214, 1987 BPD 187; Automated Business Systems & Services, Inc., GSBCA 8895-P, 87-2 BCA 19,813, 1987 BPD 61. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 58 Fed. Reg. 69246, 69255 (Dec. 30, 1993) (to be codified at 48 CFR 6101.7(b)(2)(vi). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- As we informed the parties in the show cause order, we can perceive clearly the laws which might have been violated only as to a few of the allegations made by TAG in this protest. The matters referenced in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of this opinion might involve violations of 48 CFR 15.610 (1993) (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.610), 41 U.S.C.A. 423(b)(3), (d) (West Supp. 1993), and FAR subpart 9.1. As to all the other allegations, we told TAG that the identity of the laws which might have been violated is not apparent to us. TAG was consequently directed to explain, on or before January 20, why each of those allegations should not be dismissed for failure to state a valid basis of protest. We asked that protester's response to our order state, for each of these allegations, citations to provisions of statute, regulation, or the delegation of procurement authority that the protester alleges were violated. Rule 7(b)(2)(vi). We cautioned TAG that all those allegations for which such citations were not timely provided would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a valid basis of protest. TAG did not respond to the order. Decision Protester has failed to explain, and we have been unable to discern, the laws which might have been violated by many of the actions about which protester complains. Consequently, we DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A VALID BASIS OF PROTEST the allegations listed in the last sentence of the second paragraph of this opinion. The Board will consider the remaining allegations on the basis of the protest file already submitted and whatever additional evidence is accepted at the hearing in this case. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge