B-227240.4, Aug 7, 1987

B-227240.4: Aug 7, 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 Protests - GAO procedures - Administrative reports Comments timeliness PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Deadlines - Constructive notification DIGEST: Dismissal of protest for failure to comment on agency report or to inform General Accounting Office (GAO) of continuing interest in protest within 7 working days after agency report due date is affirmed despite protester's assertion that it did not receive GAO acknowledgment notice stating 7-day deadline. Requirement for timely communication to GAO after report receipt is set forth in Bid Protest Regulations. Which are published in Federal Register. Protesters are charged with notice of their contents.

B-227240.4, Aug 7, 1987

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Administrative reports Comments timeliness PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Deadlines - Constructive notification DIGEST: Dismissal of protest for failure to comment on agency report or to inform General Accounting Office (GAO) of continuing interest in protest within 7 working days after agency report due date is affirmed despite protester's assertion that it did not receive GAO acknowledgment notice stating 7-day deadline; requirement for timely communication to GAO after report receipt is set forth in Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. part 21 (1987), which are published in Federal Register, and protesters are charged with notice of their contents.

L&G Maintenance Company-- Reconsideration:

L&G Maintenance Company asks that we reopen our file and consider on the merits its protest under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers solicitation No. DACW62-87-B-0023, for operation and maintenance services. We dismissed the protest by notice dated July 20, 1987, based on L&G's failure to submit comments, or a statement of continued interest in the protest, within 7 working days after receipt of the agency report as required by our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(e) (1987).

The Regulations provide that a protester's failure to file comments, a statement requesting that the protest be decided on the existing record, or a request for extension of the period for submitting comments will result in dismissal of the protest. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(e). After receiving the Corps' report, our Office received no communication from L&G until after L&G received our July 20 dismissal notice.

L&G requests reinstatement of its protest on the ground that it never received a standard notice ordinarily sent to protesters by our Office to acknowledge receipt of a protest. This notice advises the protester of the 7-day comment period; sets forth the report due date (here, July 7) and advises the protester to notify our Office if the report is not received by that date; and warns that the protest will be closed if we do not hear from the protester within 7 working days after the report due date.

Our records indicate that we sent L&G a standard acknowledgment notice dated June 1, indicating a report due date of July 7. Even if L&G did not receive this notice, however, it long has been our view that since our Regulations are published in the Federal Register (and are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations), protesters are on constructive notice of their contents. International Development Inst., 64 Comp.Gen. 259 (1985), 85-1 CPD Para. 179. Thus, L&G was on notice that if it did not contact our Office within 7 days after receipt of the agency report, the protest would be dismissed.

Since L&G had the opportunity to express timely continued interest in the protest, our reopening of the file would be inconsistent with our purpose of providing a fair opportunity for protesters to have their objections considered without unduly disrupting the procurement process. See F.H. Stoltye Land & Lumber Co.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-225614.2, Mar. 19, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 313.

The dismissal is affirmed.