Skip to main content

Matter of: Mercer Products & Manufacturing Co.-- Reconsideration File: B-251126.2; B-251127.2 Date: November 30, 1992

B-251126.2,B-251127.2 Nov 30, 1992
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Protest timeliness 10-day rule Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing protest of award to another firm is denied where protest did not explain why award was allegedly improper. Mercer stated that it was protesting the awards. Did not explain why it believed the awards were improper. These requirements contemplate that protesters will provide. In order for a protest to warrant initial consideration by our Office so that we will develop the record by seeking an administrative report from the agency. A protester's lack of actual knowledge of our rules regarding a detailed protest is irrelevant. Protesters are deemed as a matter of law to have constructive notice of our Regulations because they are published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.

View Decision

Matter of: Mercer Products & Manufacturing Co.-- Reconsideration File: B-251126.2; B-251127.2 Date: November 30, 1992

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Protest timeliness 10-day rule Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing protest of award to another firm is denied where protest did not explain why award was allegedly improper, and therefore did not meet General Accounting Office's requirement for a detailed statement of protest grounds.

Attorneys

DECISION Mercer Products & Manufacturing Co. requests reconsideration of our October 28 decision dismissing its protest of awards under solicitation Nos. DLA700-92-T-8331 and DLA700-92-T V933, issued by the Defense Construction Supply Center for parts.

We deny the request.

In its protest, Mercer stated that it was protesting the awards, but did not explain why it believed the awards were improper. While the protest stated that "a more detailed elaboration of the reasons for our protest follows," the additional information Mercer provided concerned only administrative information about the solicitation and contract, such as the part numbers and award price. As stated in our decision, our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of the protest. 4 C.F.R. Secs. 21.1(c)(4) and 21.1(e) (1992). These requirements contemplate that protesters will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester's claim of improper agency action. Professional Med. Prods., Inc., B-231743, July 1, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 2. In order for a protest to warrant initial consideration by our Office so that we will develop the record by seeking an administrative report from the agency, the protest mus protest did not do so, we dismissed it in accordance with our Regulations. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m).

In its reconsideration request, Mercer notes that it had asked in its protest letter for a copy of our Regulations. However, the inclusion of such a request in a protest submission has no effect on our determination of the sufficiency of the statement of protest. A protester's lack of actual knowledge of our rules regarding a detailed protest is irrelevant; protesters are deemed as a matter of law to have constructive notice of our Regulations because they are published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. Oxford Place Office Park, B-234867, June 20, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 579.

Bid protests are serious matters which require effective and equitable procedural standards to ensure both that parties will have a fair opportunity to present their cases, and that protests can be resolved in a reasonably speedy manner. Amerind Constr. Inc.--Recon., B-236686.2, Dec. 1, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 508. Accordingly, our Regulations contain strict filing requirements that place an affirmative obligation on the protester to file timely and detailed protests. Where, as here, the protester has not met its obligation, our consideration of the matter would be inconsistent with our goal of providing protesters a fair opportunity to have their objections considered without unduly disrupting the procurement process. Id.

As Mercer has not shown that our dismissal was based on any errors of fact or law, or offered new information that would warrant its reversal or modification, the request for reconsideration is denied. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a); R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs