____________________________________
 
                       DISMISSED:  March 17, 1995
                  ____________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13214-P
 
 
                     IMPERIAL COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Josef L. Kopicka of San Gabriel, CA, counsel for Protester.
 
        L.  James  Gardner,  Fleet  and  Industrial  Supply  Center,
   Department of the Navy, Jacksonville,  FL; and Eric A. Lile, Navy
   Supply  Systems Command, Department  of the Navy,  Arlington, VA,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, HYATT, and DeGRAFF.
 
   DeGRAFF, Board Judge.
 
        On March  9, 1995, Imperial Computer  Corporation (Imperial)
   filed this  protest challenging  the award of  a contract  by the
   Department of the Navy (Navy).  On March 10, 1995, the Navy filed
   a  motion to  dismiss.    The motion  is  granted and  Imperial's
   protest is dismissed because it was not timely filed.
 
                               Background
 
        The  Navy issued  a  solicitation for  thirty-eight portable
   computers on November 3, 1994, and on November 15, 1994, Imperial
   asked that the Navy amend or modify the  solicitation due to what
   Imperial   perceived  as   problems  with   the   terms  of   the
   solicitation.   Complaint    10, 11.   The Navy  did not amend or
   modify  the solicitation to  Imperial's satisfaction.   Complaint
     13.  On February 21, 1995, the Navy awarded the contract to one
   of  Imperial's  competitors.    Motion  to  Dismiss,  Exhibit  2.
   Imperial  received notice  of  the award  on  February 25,  1995.
   Complaint   6.  Imperial filed its protest on March 9, 1995.  The
   complaint alleges, "This protest involves the lack of specificity
   in soliciting the computer hardware and components for use by the
   Navy,  even after the  Navy was made  aware of  the technical and
   hardware problems.   The specifications . .  . were and are vague
   and unclear . . . ."  Complaint   13.
 
 
        On March  10, 1995, the Navy  filed a motion to  dismiss the
   protest as being  untimely.  Also  on March  10, 1995, the  Board
   ordered Imperial  to respond to  the motion to dismiss  not later
   than March 15, 1995.  Imperial did not respond to the motion.  On
   March  16, 1995,  the Board  ordered Imperial  to respond  to the
   motion or show cause why the protest should not be dismissed.  On
   March 16, 1995, Imperial filed its response.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Our rules  require that a  ground of protest must  be raised
   before proposals are  due if the ground of protest  is based upon
   alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent before
   proposals  are due.  Rule 5(b)(3)(i).   Based upon this rule, the
   Navy argues that Imperial's protest is untimely. 
 
        In its  response to the  motion to dismiss,  Imperial argues
   that the Navy "has not made an appearance in this case and has no
   standing" because the Navy has not filed an  answer.  Response to
   Motion to  Dismiss at 2.   We reject  this argument as  having no
   support  in fact  or  law.   Imperial  does not  explain  how its
   protest is timely, given Rule 5(b)(3)(i).  
 
        Taking all  of the  allegations stated in  the complaint  as
   true,  it is  clear  that,  before closing  time  for receipt  of
   proposals, Imperial believed that there were improprieties in the
   solicitation  and that  the solicitation  was  ambiguous.   Thus,
   Imperial should have filed its protest before proposals were due.
   Rule 5(b)(3)(i).
 
                                Decision
 
        The  Navy's  motion is  granted.    Because  the protest  is
   untimely, it is DISMISSED.
   ___________________________
 
                                           MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                           Board Judge
   We concur:
   ____________________________                                     
   ___________________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                             Board Judge