__________________________________________ DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED: February 25, 1994 __________________________________________ GSBCA 12755-P INTEGRATED BUSINESS COMPUTERS, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, and TELECOM DESIGN GROUP, INC., Intervenor. Mike Curry, President of Integrated Business Computers, Chatsworth, CA, appearing for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. F. Whitten Peters and John T. Parry of Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On February 14, 1994, Integrated Business Computers filed this post-award protest involving the respondent, the Department of the Air Force, and the intervenor of right-awardee, TeleCom Design Group, Inc. The protester maintains that as the proposed subcontractor of the intervenor its systems were tested and approved, but that the intervenor chose not to utilize the protester as the supplier of the systems and instead chose to provide non-compliant systems. The agency filed a motion to dismiss the protest, alleging that the protester is not an interested party and that the protest was untimely filed. The agency asserts that the protester did not submit a proposal and that the contract was awarded on November 18, 1993. The agency relies upon MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. United States, 878 F.2d 362 (Fed. Cir. 1989), in support of its contention that the protester is not an interested party. It relies upon Rule 5(b)(3) and Computer Dynamics, Inc., GSBCA 10288-P(10209-P), 90-1 BCA 22,328, 1989 BPD 294, in support of its assertion that the protest was filed beyond the ten day period when the protester knew or should have known of the basis of protest. The intervenor joined in the motion and added that the protester has failed to allege that any statutes or regulations were violated. In response to the motion and inquiry regarding the focus of the protest, the protester acknowledges that it did not submit a proposal and states that it was "going to submit the protest to the board around 2nd week of January, but because of the earthquake could not get the proper documents together." Further, the protester contends that the agency has accepted products which fail to conform to solicitation-stated requirements, suggesting that the agency has failed to obtain competition for the allegedly reduced requirements. To be timely filed under Rule 5(b)(3)(ii), a protester must file a protest within ten working days after the earlier of when it knew or should have known each ground of protest. The protester acknowledges that it knew of the grounds of protest no later than January 18 (two full weeks of January having transpired). The protest was filed more than ten working days thereafter. The protest is untimely. Accordingly, the Board DISMISSES AS UNTIMELY FILED this protest; the Board does not reach the merits of the protest. Rule 28(a). The Board does not reach the other bases of dismissal raised by the agency and intervenor. _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge