B-216383, SEP 28, 1984, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

B-216383: Sep 28, 1984

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - TIMELINESS OF PROTEST - DATE BASIS OF PROTEST MADE KNOWN TO PROTESTER DIGEST: COMPLAINT CONCERNING REJECTION OF A BID BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE FORWARDED TO GAO BY A CONGRESSMAN WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS OF GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES IN THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF WHEN THE BASIS FOR PROTEST WAS KNOWN. COURTER: THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 6. THE CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES THAT UNITED'S BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE AND THAT UNITED HAS PROTESTED THE REJECTION TO THE ARMY. UNITED'S COMPLAINT IS OF THE TYPE WE CONSIDER UNDER OUR BID PROTEST FUNCTION.

B-216383, SEP 28, 1984, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - TIMELINESS OF PROTEST - DATE BASIS OF PROTEST MADE KNOWN TO PROTESTER DIGEST: COMPLAINT CONCERNING REJECTION OF A BID BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE FORWARDED TO GAO BY A CONGRESSMAN WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS OF GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES IN THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF WHEN THE BASIS FOR PROTEST WAS KNOWN.

THE HONORABLE JIM COURTER MEMBER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1 MORRIS STREET MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07960

DEAR MR. COURTER:

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1984, FORWARDING CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE UNITED RING AND SEAL CORPORATION CONCERNING THE REJECTION OF ITS BID BY THE U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT, MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND. THE CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES THAT UNITED'S BID WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A RUBBER STAMP SIGNATURE AND THAT UNITED HAS PROTESTED THE REJECTION TO THE ARMY.

UNITED'S COMPLAINT IS OF THE TYPE WE CONSIDER UNDER OUR BID PROTEST FUNCTION. WE MUST DECLINE TO CONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR COMPLAINT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES CODIFIED AT 4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1984). THOSE PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A PROTEST BE FILED EITHER WITH THIS OFFICE OR THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF WHEN THE BASIS FOR PROTEST IS KNOWN. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2). UNITED'S CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES THAT THE ARMY ADVISED UNITED OF THE REJECTION OF ITS BID, AND THE REASON THEREFOR, BY LETTER OF JULY 31, 1984, BUT THAT UNITED DID NOT PROTEST TO THE ARMY UNTIL IT SENT ITS LETTER DATED AUGUST 22. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROTEST WAS NOT FILED WITH THE ARMY WITHIN THE REQUIRED 10-DAY PERIOD, SO THAT THE MATTER NOW REFERRED HERE MUST BE VIEWED AS UNTIMELY.