B-204243.2, JAN 5, 1982
Highlights
DIGEST: WHERE A PROTESTER REITERATES AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST. A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION DISMISSING THE PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS DENIED. WE CONCLUDED THAT TWIGG'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES BECAUSE IT WAS FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASES OF THE PROTEST WERE KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. 4 C.F.R. HELD THAT TWIGG KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE BASES FOR ITS PROTEST ON JULY 9. SINCE THE PROTEST WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AUGUST 3. IT WAS UNTIMELY. TWIGG'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.
B-204243.2, JAN 5, 1982
DIGEST: WHERE A PROTESTER REITERATES AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST, A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION DISMISSING THE PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS DENIED.
TWIGG CORPORATION - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
TWIGG CORPORATION REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN TWIGG CORPORATION, B-204243, OCTOBER 28, 1981, 81-2 CPD 358, IN WHICH WE DISMISSED THAT FIRM'S PROTEST CONCERNING ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. FA1608-81-R-8502 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE. IN THAT DECISION, WE CONCLUDED THAT TWIGG'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES BECAUSE IT WAS FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASES OF THE PROTEST WERE KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1981). HELD THAT TWIGG KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE BASES FOR ITS PROTEST ON JULY 9, 1981, AT THE LATEST, WHEN IT RECEIVED SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM THE AIR FORCE CONCERNING THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. THEREFORE, SINCE THE PROTEST WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AUGUST 3, IT WAS UNTIMELY. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, TWIGG'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.
OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SPECIFY ANY ERROR OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IN THE PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(A). IN THIS REGARD, TWIGG'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION REITERATES A PREVIOUSLY RAISED ARGUMENT THAT THE 10 WORKING DAY PROTEST FILING PERIOD DID NOT COMMENCE ON JULY 9 BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IT RECEIVED FROM THE AIR FORCE ON THAT DATE DID NOT INCLUDE A PRE-AWARD SURVEY REPORT ON THE AWARDEE. THIS REPORT, IN TWIGG'S VIEW, CONTAINED EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ITS PROTEST.
WE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST DECISION WHERE WE HELD THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE PRE-AWARD SURVEY REPORT, DEALING WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACT AWARDEE, HAD NO BEARING ON THE COMPLAINTS RAISED BY TWIGG. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE NOTE THAT THE 10 WORKING DAY PROTEST FILING PERIOD COMMENCES WHEN A PROTESTER HAS INITIAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS PROTEST BASES; NOT AT A LATER DATE WHEN IT HAS GATHERED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS PROTEST ALLEGATIONS. SEE, E.G., ADVANCED MARINE ENTERPRISES, INC., B-196252.2, FEBRUARY 7, 1980, 80-1 CPD 106. TWIGG'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION PROVIDES NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THIS MATTER FURTHER. W.M. GRACE, INC. - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-202842.2, SEPTEMBER 21, 1981, 81-2 CPD 230.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.