B-210946.2, MAY 31, 1983

B-210946.2: May 31, 1983

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DIGEST: GAO DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION DISMISSING PROTEST AS UNTIMELY WHERE THE PROTESTER FAILS TO SPECIFY ERRORS OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROTEST WAS TIMELY. EXACT WAS NOTIFIED BY TELEPHONE ON JANUARY 14. EXACT'S SUBSEQUENT FEBRUARY 18 PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL MARCH 1. SINCE THE PROTEST WAS RECEIVED HERE MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE PROTESTER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY'S INITIAL ADVERSE ACTION. EXACT ALLEGES THAT AN OFFICIAL OF GSA ADMITTED TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH EXACT MAINTAINS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SPECIFICATION NO. IT IS CLEAR FROM EARLIER CORRESPONDENCE WHICH EXACT ENCLOSED WITH ITS INITIAL FEBRUARY 18 PROTEST THAT EXACT WAS CLAIMING THAT GSA IMPROPERLY ACCEPTED SCHULTES' BID WHICH OFFERED LEVELS WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPHS NOS. 3.7.1 AND 3.9.2.3 AND THAT IN DOING SO GSA PUT AT AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE BIDDERS SUCH AS EXACT WHOSE PRODUCTS MET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

B-210946.2, MAY 31, 1983

DIGEST: GAO DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION DISMISSING PROTEST AS UNTIMELY WHERE THE PROTESTER FAILS TO SPECIFY ERRORS OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROTEST WAS TIMELY, BUT ONLY RESTATES ITS ORIGINAL ARGUMENT IN MORE DETAIL.

EXACT LEVEL & TOOL MFG. COMPANY, INC. - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

EXACT LEVEL & TOOL MFG. COMPANY, INC. REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN EXACT LEVEL & TOOL MFG. COMPANY, INC., B-210946, MARCH 22, 1983, 83-1 CPD 294, IN WHICH WE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY ITS PROTEST OF AN AWARD MADE TO SCHULTES MANUFACTURING COMPANY BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION'S FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE UNDER SOLICITATION NO. FTP-BR- F0150. WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.

EXACT WAS NOTIFIED BY TELEPHONE ON JANUARY 14, 1983 THAT AN AWARD OF THREE ITEMS HAD BEEN MADE TO SCHULTES. BY LETTER OF JANUARY 18, EXACT PROTESTED TO THE AGENCY, ALLEGING THAT SCHULTES' PRODUCTS DID NOT MEET THE FEDERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LEVELS SET FORTH IN THE SOLICITATION. ALTHOUGH EXACT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE AGENCY'S DENIAL OF ITS PROTEST ON FEBRUARY 7, EXACT'S SUBSEQUENT FEBRUARY 18 PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL MARCH 1. SINCE THE PROTEST WAS RECEIVED HERE MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE PROTESTER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY'S INITIAL ADVERSE ACTION, WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST AS UNTIMELY.

EXACT BASES ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON INFORMATION REPORTEDLY ACQUIRED AT A MAY 2, 1983 MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF EXACT AND OF GSA. EXACT ALLEGES THAT AN OFFICIAL OF GSA ADMITTED TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH EXACT MAINTAINS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SPECIFICATION NO. GGG-L 211C, PARAGRAPHS NO. 3.7.1 AND 3.9.2.3, OF THE SOLICITATION.

THIS ALLEGATION RELATES TO THE MERITS OF EXACT'S FEBRUARY 18 PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE. IT IS CLEAR FROM EARLIER CORRESPONDENCE WHICH EXACT ENCLOSED WITH ITS INITIAL FEBRUARY 18 PROTEST THAT EXACT WAS CLAIMING THAT GSA IMPROPERLY ACCEPTED SCHULTES' BID WHICH OFFERED LEVELS WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPHS NOS. 3.7.1 AND 3.9.2.3 AND THAT IN DOING SO GSA PUT AT AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE BIDDERS SUCH AS EXACT WHOSE PRODUCTS MET THE SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. AT THE MAY 2 MEETING WITH GSA, EXACT STATES, IT RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT GSA'S ENGINEERS INTERPRETED THE SPECIFICATION IN A MANNER WHICH EXACT BELIEVES IS CONTRARY TO ITS INTENT.

OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTAIN A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION IS DEEMED WARRANTED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(A) (1983). IF THE PROTESTER FAILS TO SPECIFY ANY ERRORS OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHICH SHOWS THAT THE EARLIER DECISION WAS ERRONEOUS, THEN WE WILL DENY THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. SEE C-TECH, INC. - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-207145.2, JUNE 2, 1982, 82-1 CPD 525.

EXACT'S MOST RECENT CORRESPONDENCE IS BASICALLY A MORE DETAILED RESTATEMENT OF ITS ORIGINAL PROTEST. IT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT OUR MARCH 22 DECISION IN WHICH WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST WAS IN ERROR.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.