B-243307.2, Apr 4, 1991, 91-1 CPD 353
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule - Adverse agency actions PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely filed is affirmed on reconsideration where protester argues that it was not on notice of agency's February 14 denial of its agency-level protest until February 27. The date protest was filed. Is 11 working days after February 27. We dismissed the protest as untimely because it was not received in our Office until March 14. Protectoseal argues in its reconsideration request that its protest in fact is timely since it did not receive the agency's February 14 letter until February 27.
B-243307.2, Apr 4, 1991, 91-1 CPD 353
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule - Adverse agency actions PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely filed is affirmed on reconsideration where protester argues that it was not on notice of agency's February 14 denial of its agency-level protest until February 27, since March 14, the date protest was filed, is 11 working days after February 27; under Bid Protest Regulations, protests must be filed within 10 working days after notice of denial of agency-level protest.
Attorneys
The Protectoseal Company-- Reconsideration:
The Protectoseal Company requests reconsideration of our March 15, 1991, decision dismissing its protest of the rejection of its offer under solicitation No. FCNO-90-J201-N, issued by the General Services Administration. We dismissed the protest as untimely because it was not received in our Office until March 14, more than 10 working days after the protester learned of the agency's February 14 denial of the firm's January 4 agency-level protest. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests must be filed in our Office no later than 10 working days after the protester knows or should know of the agency's initial adverse action on an agency- level protest. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3) (1991).
Protectoseal argues in its reconsideration request that its protest in fact is timely since it did not receive the agency's February 14 letter until February 27. Even measuring from this date, however, the protest is untimely. March 14 is 11 working days after February 27, not 10 working days as Protectoseal assumes. Protectoseal's protest letter is dated March 13 and may have been sent on that date, but a protest is not deemed to be filed until it is actually received in our Office. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(g). The time/date stamp on Protectoseal's letter shows it was received here at 11:52 a.m. on March 14. See Custom Programmers Inc., B-235716, Sept. 19, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 245.
The dismissal is affirmed.