__________________________________________ DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED: June 19, 1995 __________________________________________ GSBCA 13297-P PHILIPS DICTATION SYSTEMS (USA), Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Jerry Bens, Systems Sales Representative, Philips Dictation Systems (USA), Washington, DC, appearing for Protester. Philip Kauffman, Jeanne Anderson and Merilee Rosenberg, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On June 7, 1995, Philips Dictation Systems (USA) filed this post-award protest challenging actions of the respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs. The protester raises two grounds of protest, each of which is based upon alleged improprieties in the solicitation which were apparent before the closing time for receipt of proposals. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the protest as untimely filed. The protester states its two bases of protest as follows: 1) The VA Medical Center did not respond to the questions that I sent requesting information pertaining to the direct composition of the equipment (thereby affecting my price quote). Specifically, the price quote never stated directly how many active ports the Dictation system would hold. Since my questions were never answered in writing or otherwise, I still have no idea how many ports are included in the awarded system. 2) The RFP [request for proposals] was ambiguous as to which features were to be included in each company's price quote. In particular, the RFP stated that the Dictation system should be able to interface with an existing RIS (Radiology Information System). Upon reading this, I concluded that my proposal should state the cost of interfacing with the RIS, but it was not a line item on the sample response form in the RFP. Simply put, the cost of the RIS interface led directly to my company's proposal being priced slightly higher than the awarded contractor, the Dictaphone Corporation. Prior to filing this post-award protest, the protester did not challenge to the agency, or elsewhere, the terms of the solicitation. In response to an order by the Board for the protester to supplement the record with evidence and argument addressing the timeliness of its protest, the protester has raised no basis which suggests the timeliness of its filing. Board Rules dictate the requirements for filing a timely protest. As here relevant, a ground of protest based upon alleged improprieties in any type of solicitation which are apparent before the closing time for receipt of proposals must be filed before the closing time for receipt of proposals. Rule 5(b)(3). Both grounds of protest are premised upon an alleged ambiguity in the terms of the solicitation. Philips submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation; previously it did not file a protest. The closing time for receipt of proposals passed before Philips filed this protest. The protest was untimely filed. Decision The protest is DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED. ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ ___________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER MARTHA H. DEGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge