B-206234.2,L/M, APR 20, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-206234.2,L/M: Apr 20, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

DIGEST: WHERE PROTEST TO GAO IS FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION OF DENIAL OF PROTEST BY AGENCY. IT IS UNTIMELY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES (4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1981)) AND FACT THAT UNTIMELINESS MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY DELAY IN MAIL DOES NOT ALTER CONCLUSION. WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION THAT HIS PROTEST TO THE PROCURING AGENCY WAS DENIED. YOU REQUEST THAT OUR OFFICE RECONSIDER THE MATTER BECAUSE THE UNTIMELY RECEIPT OF HICKOK'S PROTEST IN OUR OFFICE WAS NOT THE FAULT OF HICKOK. OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT NO PROTEST WILL BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS UNLESS IT FIRST MEETS OUR TIMELINESS RULES.

B-206234.2,L/M, APR 20, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

DIGEST: WHERE PROTEST TO GAO IS FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION OF DENIAL OF PROTEST BY AGENCY, IT IS UNTIMELY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES (4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1981)) AND FACT THAT UNTIMELINESS MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY DELAY IN MAIL DOES NOT ALTER CONCLUSION.

JOHN GLENN, UNITED STATES SENATE:

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1982, ENCLOSING CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. ROBERT L. BAUMAN OF HICKOK ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENT COMPANY CONCERNING ITS PROTEST AGAINST THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. M67004-81-B-0350 ISSUED BY THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, ALBANY, GEORGIA.

BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1982, WE INFORMED MR. BAUMAN THAT HIS PROTEST FILED (I.E., RECEIVED) HERE ON JANUARY 28, 1982, WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1981), SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION THAT HIS PROTEST TO THE PROCURING AGENCY WAS DENIED. YOU REQUEST THAT OUR OFFICE RECONSIDER THE MATTER BECAUSE THE UNTIMELY RECEIPT OF HICKOK'S PROTEST IN OUR OFFICE WAS NOT THE FAULT OF HICKOK.

OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT NO PROTEST WILL BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS UNLESS IT FIRST MEETS OUR TIMELINESS RULES. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES ESTABLISH AN ORDERLY PROCESS TO INSURE EQUITABLE AND PROMPT RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS. THE TIME LIMITS ON THE SUBMISSION OF BID PROTESTS WERE ADOPTED TO PERMIT US TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHILE IT IS STILL PRACTICABLE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCUREMENT WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT. THEREFORE, TIMELINESS STANDARDS FOR THE FILING OF PROTESTS MUST BE AND ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED BY OUR OFFICE. CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, 54 COMP.GEN. 97, 111 (1974), 74-2 CPD 91. THE FACT THAT HICKOK ATTRIBUTES THE UNTIMELINESS OF ITS PROTEST TO A DELAY IN THE MAIL GIVES RISE TO NO BASIS FOR OUR OFFICE TO CONSIDER THE UNTIMELY PROTEST. DOMAR BUCKLE MFG. CORP. - RECONSIDERATION, B-202901.2, AUGUST 17, 1981, 81-2 CPD 148.

SINCE THE PROTEST IS UNTIMELY, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS.