GRANTED IN PART:  April 5, 1993 
                                                     
 
        
                             GSBCA 12346-P 
 
 
                          RMTC SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                     INTEGRATED FEDERAL SOLUTIONS,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Jeff Stollman, President of RMTC Systems, Inc., Boulder, CO,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Clarence  D. Long,  III,  Office  of  the  General  Counsel,
   Department   of  the  Air  Force,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
        Stephen L.  Mills, Vice  President of  Marketing, Integrated
   Federal Solutions, Vienna, VA, appearing for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, BORWICK, and GOODMAN.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Respondent, the  Department of  the Air  Force (Air  Force),
   pursuant to negotiation,  has awarded a contract  for eighty-five
   personal  computers and  related hardware  to Integrated  Federal
   Solutions  (IFS  or  intervenor), which  has  intervened  in this
   protest as  of right.   Protester, RMTC Systems, Inc.  (RMTC), an
   unsuccessful offeror on  the procurement, did not  receive notice
   of the award  until twenty-four days had elapsed from the date of
   award.  Respondent's failure to promptly notify  protester of the
   rejection  of its  proposal  contravened statute  and regulation.
   Therefore,  the   Board  suspends   respondent's  delegation   of
   procurement  authority   pending  further  proceedings   on  this
   protest.  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(B) (1988).
    
 
                           Findings of Fact 
 
        1.  On  Tuesday, March  30, 1993,  the  Board docketed  this
   protest.  Protester alleged in its protest complaint:
 
        On March 29, 1993, RMTC  received a notice of award for
        the  referenced contract  to  a  higher priced  offeror
        other than RMTC.  This letter (dated March 3, 1993, but
        postmarked  March 24)  cited a  minor  error in  RMTC's
        proposal . . . .
 
   Protest Complaint at 1.
 
        2.  Protester's  complaint,   without  specifically   citing
   statute and regulation, alleged a violation of the Competition in
   Contracting  Act (CICA),  10  U.S.C.    2305(b)(4)(B) (Supp.  III
   1991),  and Federal  Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  15.1001(a), 48
   CFR  15.1001(a)  (1991), asserting  that the  contracting officer
   failed to promptly notify protester of the award, and requested a
   suspension     of     the      subject     procurement.[foot #] 1
   Protest Complaint at 1.
 
        3.  The Board convened a  prehearing conference by telephone
   at  1:00 p.m.  on  Wednesday,  March 31,  1993,  and the  parties
   discussed the circumstances surrounding the transmittal of notice
   of  award  to protester.   Respondent's  counsel stated  that the
   notice of award letter was dated March 5, 1993.  Protester stated
   this was correct and his reference in  his protest complaint to a
   March 3, 1993, notice of  award letter was a typographical error.
   Respondent's counsel stated that he  had no evidence at that time
   as to  any attempt  by the Air  Force to  telecopy the  notice of
   award to protester, nor  any evidence of the  date of mailing  of
   the  notice  of  award  to  protester.    Board's  Memorandum  of
   Prehearing Conference (Mar. 31, 1993).  
 
        4.  During the  prehearing conference,  respondent's counsel
   stated  that respondent  would not  voluntarily suspend  contract
   performance  pending resolution of  the protest.   Respondent was
   unable  to  provide  the Board  with  information  concerning the
   precise status  of the contract.   The Board requested  that both
   respondent and intervenor provide information as to the status of
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   Although it appears that the protest was timely
   filed within ten working days after protester first  became aware
   of the rejection  of its proposal, pursuant to  Rule 5(b)(3)(ii),
   it was filed  more than ten calendar  days after the date  of the
   award and,  thus, beyond  the permissible  time for  a suspension
   hearing  pursuant  to  Rule 19(a)(2)  and  40  U.S.C.   759(f)(3)
   (1988).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   deliveries  and acceptance  of any  units under  the contract  by
   close  of  business,  April  1,  1993.    Board's  Memorandum  of
   Prehearing Conference (Mar. 31, 1993).  
 
 
        5.  The Board  informed protester's  representative that  if
   protester  wished to pursue its request for suspension, protester
   must   file  a  motion   seeking  summary  relief   as  to  tardy
   notification, to  be decided pending resolution of  the merits of
   the remainder of the case.   
 
        6.  Protester  filed a motion  in support of  its suspension
   request on  April 1, 1993,  and respondent filed its  response on
   that same date.  
 
        7.  Attached to protester's motion is a copy of the envelope
   which  protester  alleges  contained the  notice  of  award dated
   March 5,  1993.   The envelope  bears a postal  meter and  a post
   office postmark, both  dated March 24, 1993.   At the  request of
   the Board on April 2, 1993,  protester forwarded to the Board and
   all parties a copy of the Air Force's March 5, 1993, letter which
   was contained in the envelope. 
 
        8.  Protester   submitted  in  support   of  its   motion  a
   Declaration of its President which states, in relevant part:
 
             RMTC picks  up mail sent to its  Post Office boxes
        every business day.
 
             RMTC  picked  up its  mail as  usual on  March 29,
        1993.   On this day,  included in the regular  mail was
        the Notice of Award for Solicitation F49650-93-R-0048.
 
             Prior to  March 29,  1993, RMTC  had no  knowledge
        that award of the subject solicitation had been made.
 
   First Declaration of Jeff Stollman, dated March 31, 1993.
 
        9.  Respondent's response to protester's motion contains two
   paragraphs as follows:
 
              Ms.  Boykin,  the  contract   specialist  on  the
        protested  procurement  does  not  recall  speaking  to
        anyone from  RMTC  the second  or the  fifth of  March,
        1993.  She  does recall telling several  contractors in
        early  March  that  the award  documents  had  not been
        finalized.
 
             Forty-one systems  (PCs'  and  monitors)  and  one
        printer  have been delivered under the contract.  Forty
        systems  and  six  printers  remain  to  be  delivered.
        Status of  acceptance and  payment is  unknown at  this
        time.
 
   Respondent's Response to RMTC Suspension Motion at 1.
 
        Thus,  respondent  did  not deny  or  contradict protester's
   statements that the notice of award was mailed to protester in an
   envelope postmarked March 24, 1993.
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        Our statutory grant of protest authority states: 
 
             (A) In making a decision on the merits of protests
        brought  under this section, the board shall accord due
        weight to the policies of this section and the goals of
        economic  and efficient  procurement set forth  in this
        section. . . .
     
             (B) If  the  board determines  that  a  challenged
        agency action violates  a statute or regulation  or the
        conditions of  any delegation of  procurement authority
        issued pursuant to this section, the board may suspend,
        revoke,  or  revise the  procurement  authority of  the
        Administrator  or  the  Administrator's  delegation  of
        procurement  authority  applicable  to  the  challenged
        procurement.   
 
   40 U.S.C.    759(f)(5) (1988).   Thus,  we have the  authority to
   suspend, revise or  revoke a delegation of  procurement authority
   if  agency actions  violate  either  statute,  regulation,  or  a
   delegation of procurement  authority.  We find  that respondent's
   failure to provide  protester with prompt notice of  its award of
   the contract violated statute and regulation as discussed below. 
    
 
        The CICA requires prompt notice  of award to all offerors in
   negotiated procurement:     
 
        Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the head
        of  the agency shall  award a contract  with reasonable
        promptness to the responsible  source whose proposal is
        most  advantageous to  the  United States,  considering
        only  cost or price  and the other  factors included in
        the  solicitation.  The head  of the agency shall award
        the  contract  by transmitting  written  notice  of the
        award  to such  source and  shall  promptly notify  all
        other offerors of the rejection of their proposals.  
 
   10 U.S.C.   2305(b)(4)(B) (Supp. III 1991).  
 
        Prompt  notice of  contract  award to  all offerors  is also
   required by regulation for procurement pursuant to negotiation by
   FAR 15.1001(a), which mandates that:
 
        The  contracting  officer  shall promptly  notify  each
        offeror whose proposal is determined to be unacceptable
 
        or whose  offer is not  selected for award,  unless the
        disclosure might prejudice the Government's interest.
 
        In  this instance,  the  requisite prompt  notification  was
   clearly not provided.  The contract was awarded on March 5, 1993.
   Finding 3.   There  is no evidence  that respondent  attempted to
   notify protester  of award  until it mailed  the notice  of award
   letter, dated  March 5,  1993, on March  24, 1993,  nineteen days
   after award.  The  notice of award was not received  by protester
   until March 29, 1993, twenty-four  days after award.  Findings 7,
   8. Respondent  has offered  no explanation as  to its  failure to
   mail  or otherwise  transmit  the notice  of  award to  protester
   promptly after award.  Finding 9.  
 
        This Board  has previously  held that  the mandatory  notice
   requirements such as  those in 10 U.S.C.    2305(b)(4)(B) and FAR
   15.1001(a)  are necessary  elements of  the procurement  process.
   Without prompt  notice of  rejection, an  offeror  is denied  the
   opportunity to obtain  a de novo review of  a contested rejection
   at a time when a meaningful remedy is possible.  The CICA granted
   this  Board  protest  authority in  order  to  provide meaningful
   relief  to protesters.  See American Service Corp., GSBCA 8224-P,
   85-3 BCA    18,517; System  Industries, Inc., GSBCA  7961-P, 85-3
   BCA    18,222.   Respondent's  withholding  of award  information
   frustrates this purpose.  
 
        We   find  that  respondent's  failure  to  promptly  notify
   protester  of contract award in this procurement clearly violated
   statute and regulation. 
    
 
                               Decision 
    
        We SUSPEND respondent's delegation of procurement authority.
   As a  result of  this suspension, respondent  may not  accept any
   units delivered to it which have  not been accepted prior to 3:00
   p.m. on April 5, 1993.  Respondent may not reprocure or otherwise
   obtain these  units until  such time as  the remaining  issues in
   this  protest are resolved by this Board, at which time the Board
   may revise the delegation of procurement authority.  
 
                                      ________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
 
   _____________________              _______________________
   DONALD W. DEVINE                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge                        Board Judge