B-220680.2, NOV 12, 1985

B-220680.2: Nov 12, 1985

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 - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: ORIGINALLY DECISION DISMISSING A PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS AFFIRMED WHERE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THE INITIAL PROTEST TO THE AGENCY. WAS NOT FILED UNTIL 11 CALENDER DAYS AFTER THE EXTENDED CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. ALTHOUGH THAT PROTEST WAS BASED ON DEFICIENCIES THE FIRM PERCEIVED IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITATION. IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THE AGENCY BEFORE THE NEXT CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS. THUS THE PROTEST TO THE AGENCY WAS UNTIMELY. THE SUBSEQUENT PROTEST TO THIS OFFICE WAS ALSO UNTIMELY. 4 C.F.R.

B-220680.2, NOV 12, 1985

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: ORIGINALLY DECISION DISMISSING A PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS AFFIRMED WHERE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THE INITIAL PROTEST TO THE AGENCY, BASED UPON AN ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY IN AN AMENDMENT, WAS NOT FILED UNTIL 11 CALENDER DAYS AFTER THE EXTENDED CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS.

FLIGHT RESOURCES INC.-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

FLIGHT RESOURCES INC. REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DISMISSAL OF ITS PROTEST OF THE FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TO EXTEND THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS (RFTP) NO. DTFA15-85-R 10011. SEE FEDERAL RESOURCES INC., B-220680, OCT. 25, 1985, 85-2 CPD PARA. ---.

WE AFFIRM THE DISMISSAL.

THE PROTEST FILED BY FLIGHT RESOURCES INDICATED THAT FLIGHT RESOURCES HAD INITIALLY PROTESTED TO THE AGENCY. ALTHOUGH THAT PROTEST WAS BASED ON DEFICIENCIES THE FIRM PERCEIVED IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITATION, IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THE AGENCY BEFORE THE NEXT CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(1) (1985). THUS THE PROTEST TO THE AGENCY WAS UNTIMELY, AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROTEST TO THIS OFFICE WAS ALSO UNTIMELY. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(9)(3).

FLIGHT RESOURCES DOES NOT DISAGREE WITH THE DATES UPON WHICH WE BASED OUR DISMISSAL. IN FACT, ITS REQUEST AGAIN INDICATES THAT THE CLOSING DATE WAS SEPTEMBER 5, 1985, THAT ITS PROTEST WAS DATED SEPTEMBER 9 AND THAT IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY ON SEPTEMBER 16. THE PROTESTER BELIEVES THAT ITS PROTEST WAS TIMELY BECAUSE FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE AGENCY'S DENIAL OF ITS PROTEST.

IT IS APPARENT THAT FLIGHT RESOURCES BASED ITS PROTEST AND ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES THAT PROTEST IN CASES OTHER THAN THOSE COVERED BY 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(1) MUST BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS OF PROTEST IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. HOWEVER, THE PROVISION IS CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.

THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED.