B-223194.3, B-223195.3, B-223196.3, JAN 8, 1987, 87-1 CPD 31

B-223194.3,B-223196.3,B-223195.3: Jan 8, 1987

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PROCUREMENT - BID PROTEST - GAO PROCEDURES - INTERESTED PARTIES DIGEST: INDIVIDUAL WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN PRIOR PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AND NOW IS ACTING AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION. THE BIDS WERE REJECTED AS NONRESPONSIVE BECAUSE THE STENOMASK SYSTEM OFFERED BY RIFFE-COBB WAS CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE. WHO INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING ANY BIDS FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES AND WHO IS THE FATHER OF SHARON R. RIFFE -COBB (WHO IS NO LONGER IN THE COURT REPORTING BUSINESS). RIFFE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION. WE WILL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ONLY FROM INTERESTED PARTIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE INITIAL PROTEST OR FROM ANY FEDERAL AGENCY THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROTEST. 4 C.F.R.

B-223194.3, B-223195.3, B-223196.3, JAN 8, 1987, 87-1 CPD 31

PROCUREMENT - BID PROTEST - GAO PROCEDURES - INTERESTED PARTIES DIGEST: INDIVIDUAL WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN PRIOR PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AND NOW IS ACTING AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION.

RIFFE-COBB REPORTING-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

CARL A. RIFFE REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN SHARON R. RIFFE -COBB-- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-223194.2 ET AL., JUNE 25, 1986, 86-2 CPD PARA. 9. THAT DECISION AFFIRMED OUR EARLIER DISMISSALS AS UNTIMELY OF SHARON R. RIFFE-COBB'S PROTESTS CONCERNING THE REJECTION OF THREE BIDS SUBMITTED TO 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.

CARL RIFFE, WHO INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING ANY BIDS FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES AND WHO IS THE FATHER OF SHARON R. RIFFE -COBB (WHO IS NO LONGER IN THE COURT REPORTING BUSINESS), HAS REQUESTED THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE THOUSANDS OF COURT REPORTERS OFFERING THE STENOMASK SYSTEM.

MR. RIFFE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION. UNDER OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, WE WILL CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ONLY FROM INTERESTED PARTIES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE INITIAL PROTEST OR FROM ANY FEDERAL AGENCY THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.12(A) (1986). MR. RIFFE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE INITIAL PROTESTS AND THEREFORE CANNOT NOW REQUEST RECONSIDERATION. SEE TANDEM COMPUTERS, INC.- - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-221333.2 ET AL., SEPT. 18, 1986, 86-2 CPD PARA. 315.

MOREOVER, EVEN IF MR. COBB HAD PREVIOUSLY PARTICIPATED AND COULD BE VIEWED AS AN INTERESTED PARTY, THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WOULD BE UNTIMELY SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF WHEN THE BASIS FOR THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WAS KNOWN, AS REQUIRED BY 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.12(B).

THE REQUEST IS DISMISSED.