B-223194.2, B-223195.2, B-223196.2, JUN 25, 1986

B-223194.2,B-223196.2,B-223195.2: Jun 25, 1986

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 - CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DIGEST: PROTESTER'S ASSERTION THAT SHE WAS UNAWARE OF HER RIGHT TO APPEAL AGENCY'S REJECTION OF HER BIDS AS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR WAIVER OF OUR TIMELINESS RULES SINCE THE PROTESTER IS CHARGED WITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF GAO'S BID PROTEST REGULATIONS THROUGH THEIR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. THE BIDS WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE STENOMASK SYSTEM OFFERED BY RIFFE-COBB WAS CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE. WE DISMISSED THE PROTESTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE DATE THE BASIS FOR PROTEST WAS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS.

B-223194.2, B-223195.2, B-223196.2, JUN 25, 1986

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DIGEST: PROTESTER'S ASSERTION THAT SHE WAS UNAWARE OF HER RIGHT TO APPEAL AGENCY'S REJECTION OF HER BIDS AS NONRESPONSIVE TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR WAIVER OF OUR TIMELINESS RULES SINCE THE PROTESTER IS CHARGED WITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF GAO'S BID PROTEST REGULATIONS THROUGH THEIR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

SHARON R. RIFFE-COBB-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

SHARON R. RIFFE-COBB REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR MAY 28, 1986 DISMISSALS OF HER PROTESTS IN CONNECTION WITH INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NOS. 1126-86-01, 1126-86-02, 1126-86-03, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES. THE BIDS WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE STENOMASK SYSTEM OFFERED BY RIFFE-COBB WAS CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE. WE DISMISSED THE PROTESTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE DATE THE BASIS FOR PROTEST WAS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(2) (1986).

WE AFFIRM OUR PRIOR DISMISSALS.

ALTHOUGH THE PROTESTER WAS ADVISED BY THE AGENCY ON APRIL 30, 1986 THAT HER BIDS HAD BEEN REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE, THE PROTESTS WERE NOT FILED WITH OUR OFFICE UNTIL MAY 27. IN HER RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, THE PROTESTER ASSERTS THAT SHE WAS NOT ADVISED OF HER PROTEST RIGHTS BY THE AGENCY AND THAT THE PROTESTS WERE FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER AFTER DISCOVERY OF HER APPEAL RIGHTS. ALSO, THE PROTESTER ASSERTS THAT OUR DISMISSALS FAILED TO CONSIDER HER ASSERTION THAT THE EXCLUSION OF STENOMASK SERVICES IS INCONSISTENT WITH A 1982 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) REPORT WHICH CONCLUDED THAT ELECTRONIC RECORDING SYSTEMS PROVIDE A BETTER RECORD OF COURT PROCEEDINGS THAN CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH OTHER METHODS.

THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION THAT IT WAS NOT ADVISED OF ITS RIGHT TO PROTEST TO GAO DOES NOT EXCUSE THE UNTIMELINESS OF THE PROTESTS. OUR REGULATIONS ARE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER AND, THEREFORE, PROTESTERS ARE CHARGED WITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THEIR CONTENTS. INTERNATIONAL SHELTER SYS., INC.-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-221563.2, MAR. 27, 1986, 86-1 CPD PARA. 295. A PROTESTER'S PROFESSED UNAWARENESS OF THESE PUBLISHED REGULATIONS IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR WAIVING THEIR REQUIREMENTS. AGHA CONSTRUCTION-- RECONSIDERATION, B-218741.3, JUNE 10, 1985, 85-1 CPD PARA. 662.

AS WE HAVE OFTEN STATED, BID PROTESTS ARE SERIOUS MATTERS WHICH REQUIRE EFFECTIVE AND EQUITABLE PROCEDURAL STANDARDS, BOTH SO THAT PARTIES HAVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASES AND SO THAT PROTESTS CAN BE RESOLVED IN A REASONABLY SPEEDY MANNER. CALIFORNIA SHORTHAND REPORTING-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-221173.2, FEB. 18, 1986, 86-1 CPD PARA. 170. OUR REGULATIONS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR EXPEDITIOUS CONSIDERATION OF PROCUREMENT ACTIONS WITHOUT UNDULY DISRUPTING THE GOVERNMENT'S PROCUREMENT PROCESS. TO WAIVE OUR TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROTESTER'S SOLE BENEFIT WOULD ONLY SERVE TO COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE RULES. BARTRIDGE EQUIPMENT CORP.-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-219982.2, OCT. 17, 1985, 85-2 CPD PARA. 418.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTESTER'S ASSERTION CONCERNING THE 1982 REPORT, WE NOTE THAT WE DID CONSIDER THIS ALLEGATION IN OUR PRIOR DISMISSALS. THE PROTESTER WAS ADVISED ON APRIL 30 THAT STENOMASK SERVICES WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AND TO THE EXTENT THIS DETERMINATION WAS CONSIDERED IMPROPER IN VIEW OF OUR PRIOR REPORT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE PROTESTER TO ALSO RAISE THIS ISSUE WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THIS NOTICE. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(2).

OUR PRIOR DISMISSALS ARE AFFIRMED.