B-202961.2, B-202961.3, NOV 12, 1981

B-202961.2, B-202961.3, NOV 12, 1981

DIGEST: 1. WHERE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION ARE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT BY PARTIES OF DECISION THROUGH NORMAL DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS, REQUESTS ARE TIMELY FILED. 2. ORIGINAL DECISION IS AFFIRMED WHERE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION DO NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW.

RAMAL INDUSTRIES INC. - RECONSIDERATION:

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (ARMY) AND REVERE COPPER AND BRASS INCORPORATED (REVERE) REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN RAMAL INDUSTRIES INC., 60 COMP.GEN. (B-202961, AUGUST 25, 1981), 81-2 CPD 177.

IN THE DECISION, WE HELD THAT REVERE, WHO OFFERED A 30-DAY BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD RATHER THAN THE 60-DAY PERIOD REQUESTED IN THE INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB), COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND THE 30-DAY PERIOD IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR AWARD, SINCE AN EXTENSION WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE OTHER BIDDERS WHO OFFERED THE REQUESTED ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. THE ARMY AND REVERE REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION. RAMAL INDUSTRIES INC. (RAMAL) CONTENDS THAT THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE UNTIMELY.

WE FIND THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION TO BE TIMELY. HOWEVER, WE AFFIRM THE DECISION.

RAMAL CONTENDS THAT THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE UNTIMELY UNDER SECTION 21.9(B) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(B) (1981), BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS RENDERED ON AUGUST 25 AND, WITH BOTH THE ARMY AND THE REVERE ATTORNEY BEING LOCATED IN WASHINGTON, D. C., THEY COULD HAVE OBTAINED THE DECISION ON THAT DATE AND SHOULD HAVE FILED THEIR REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE DECISION. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE PARTIES TO BE ON NOTICE OF OUR DECISION UNTIL IT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THEM THROUGH OUR REGULAR DISTRIBUTION. SINCE THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION WERE FILED HERE WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE PARTIES RECEIVED A COPY OF OUR DECISION THROUGH OUR REGULAR DISTRIBUTION, WE CONSIDER THE REQUESTS TO BE TIMELY.

ARMY DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE IFB TO HAVE REQUESTED BIDDERS TO BID A 60-DAY ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. FURTHER, ARMY DISAGREES THAT DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATION (DAR) SEC. 2-404.1(C), PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF BIDS WHICH MAY EXPIRE BEFORE AWARD, APPLIES ONLY WHERE ALL BIDS ARE ABOUT TO EXPIRE. REVERE AGREES WITH THE ARMY IN ITS POSITION THAT THE IFB DID NOT REQUEST A 60-DAY BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. FURTHER, REVERE CITES A NUMBER OF OUR DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADDITIONAL POSITION THAT REVERE COULD PROPERLY EXTEND ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.

IN OUR VIEW, THE IFB REQUESTED BIDS ON A 60-DAY BASIS. THE IFB STATED "60 CALENDAR DAYS UNLESS A DIFFERENT PERIOD IS INSERTED BY THE OFFEROR." ALTHOUGH THE IFB GAVE BIDDERS THE OPTION TO STATE A TIME DIFFERENT FROM THE 60-DAY PERIOD, THE FACT REMAINS THAT 60 DAYS WAS REQUESTED IN THE IFB.

FURTHER, WE HAVE INTERPRETED THE PROVISION IN DAR SEC. 2-404.1(C) TO PERTAIN TO A SITUATION WHEN A GROUP OF OFFERS MIGHT EXPIRE BEFORE AWARD ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED RATHER THAN TO A SITUATION WHEN A PARTICULAR OFFEROR HAS CHOSEN TO LIMIT ITS ACCEPTANCE TIME. B-162000, SEPTEMBER 1, 1967.

MOREOVER, WHILE REVERE HAS CITED DECISIONS TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT REVERE COULD PROPERLY EXTEND ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD, NONE OF THE DECISIONS INVOLVED ARE THE PRECISE SITUATION INVOLVED HERE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT DIRECTLY IN POINT.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION TO DEMONSTRATE ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 25, 1981.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION IS SUSTAINED.