__________________________________________
 
               MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY FILED DENIED
                            October 18, 1994
               __________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12999-P
 
                     COLUMBIA SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
 
                                        Protester,
                                  and
 
                        TRESP ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                        Permissive Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        David  R. Smith, General Counsel of Columbia Services Group,
   Inc.,  Arlington, VA;  and John  R. Tolle  of Barton,  Mountain &
   Tolle, McLean, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Mary Beth Bosco,  Timothy B. Mills,  Glenn T. Reynolds,  and
   Christy L. Gherlein, of Patton Boggs, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Permissive Intervenor.
 
        Mary D.  Copeland, Wendy E. Ojeda, and Nicole Porter, Office
   of Chief  Counsel, Department of  Energy, Oak Ridge,  TN, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        A ground  of protest  (not  apparent before  bid opening  or
   receipt of proposals, and not related to a protest to the agency)
   is timely filed with the Board if filed no later than ten working
   days  after  the  basis  is  known or  should  have  been  known,
   whichever is earlier.  Rule 5(b)(3).
 
        By  letter  dated August  31,  1994,  and  received  by  the
   protester   on  September  6,   the  protester  learned   of  its
   elimination from  the  competitive range.   In  part, the  letter
   states that the source evaluation board (SEB):
 
        evaluated  all proposals  carefully in  accordance with
        the  procedures outlined  in the  solicitation.   As  a
        result of this evaluation the [SEB] has established the
 
        competitive range, i.e., those  proposals which have  a
        reasonable chance of being selected for award.
 
        Your proposal  was determined  by the Board  not to  be
        within  the competitive  range.   Other proposals  were
        deemed to be superior to such a degree that there is no
        real  possibility that your proposal can be improved to
        the point  that it  could become  the most  acceptable.
        Consequently, your  proposal  will  not  be  considered
        further for award.
 
        It is [the agency's] policy to provide a  debriefing in
        competitive  procurements  when requested  in  writing.
        Such debriefing, if  requested, shall be confined  to a
        discussion  of   how  your  proposal  could  have  been
        improved in  relation to the  Government's requirements
        with the  objective of improvement of  future proposals
        submitted by your firm to the Government.
 
   Agency  Motion  to  Dismiss,  Attachment  1.    By  letter  dated
   September   7,  the  protester  requested  a  debriefing.    Id.,
   Attachment 2.
 
        On October 3, 1994, Columbia Services Group, Inc. filed this
   pre-award protest.  The protester raises three grounds of protest
   concerning actions of  the respondent, the Department  of Energy,
   surrounding the elimination of the protester from the competitive
   range.   First, the protester  contends that the  agency departed
   from   the  evaluation  and  selection  criteria  stated  in  the
   solicitation regarding  outreach and community  involvement under
   an  effective diversity program.  Second, the protester maintains
   that  the   agency  utilized  unstated   evaluation  criteria  in
   reviewing  the protester's  corporate experience.   Finally,  the
   protester   asserts  that,   based  on   the  solicitation-stated
   evaluation  and selection criteria, its proposal has a reasonable
   chance of being selected for award such that the elimination from
   the  competitive  range   for  the  reasons  stated   during  the
   debriefing is improper.  The protester states that its protest is
   timely filed, because it  learned of the grounds of  protest at a
   debriefing held on September 22.
 
        In  moving to  dismiss the  protest as  untimely filed,  the
   agency asserts that the protester learned of its elimination from
   the competitive  range more  than ten working  days prior  to its
   filing of  the protest.   This case  is distinguishable  from the
   precedent cited by the agency.   RMTC Systems, Inc. v. Department
   of  the Army,  GSBCA 12249-P,  93-2 BCA    25,721, 1993  BPD   30
   (when informed  that elimination  from the  competitive range  is
   premised on technical unacceptability, the ten working day period
   to   file  a  protest   challenging  the  elimination   from  the
   competitive range is triggered).   The agency did not inform this
   protester that its proposal was technically unacceptable.
 
        By  letter  the  agency  informed  the  protester  that  the
   evaluations  were  conducted "carefully  in  accordance with  the
   procedures  outlined  in   the  solicitation."    The   protester
   maintains in its  protest that such was not the case, and that it
   learned  of the  alleged violations  for  the first  time at  the
   debriefing.    It  filed  the  protest within  ten  working  days
   thereafter.   The existing  record does not  permit the  Board to
   conclude that the protest was untimely filed.  See CEXEC, Inc. v.
   Department of  Energy, GSBCA  12909-P, 1994  BPD   176 (Aug.  19,
   1994).   Accordingly, the Board  DENIES the motion to  dismiss as
   untimely filed.
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
   _________________________            _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                          Board Judge