B-227588.2, Jul 21, 1987, 87-2 CPD 73

B-227588.2: Jul 21, 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 - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule - Adverse agency actions PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Deadlines - Constructive notification DIGEST: Protester's assertion that agency failed to advise it of requirement to file protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 10 working days after protester received denial of its agency-level protest is not basis for consideration of the protest since the protester is charged with constructive notice of GAO's Bid Protest Regulations which are published in the Federal Register. Because PSI's protest was filed with our Office more that 10 working days after the protester knew of initial adverse agency action (the agency's denial of its protest) on the agency-level protest.

B-227588.2, Jul 21, 1987, 87-2 CPD 73

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule - Adverse agency actions PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Deadlines - Constructive notification DIGEST: Protester's assertion that agency failed to advise it of requirement to file protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 10 working days after protester received denial of its agency-level protest is not basis for consideration of the protest since the protester is charged with constructive notice of GAO's Bid Protest Regulations which are published in the Federal Register.

Precision Sensors, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Precision Sensors, Inc. (PSI) requests that we reconsider our dismissal of its protest against award of a contract under solicitation No. DAA607- 87-A138, issued by the Department of the Army. We dismissed PSI's protest as untimely. We affirm the dismissal.

PSI's protest letter, filed with our Office on June 29, 1987, indicated that PSI had filed a protest with the contracting officer, alleging that the bid of Nason Company, the awardee, did not conform to the specifications. By letter of May 29, 1987, received by the protester on June 3, the contracting officer denied the agency-level protest. dismissed the protest as untimely pursuant to 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3) (1986), because PSI's protest was filed with our Office more that 10 working days after the protester knew of initial adverse agency action (the agency's denial of its protest) on the agency-level protest. C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3).

On reconsideration, PSI does not dispute the basis for our dismissal of its protest. PSI asserts that the Army denied its protest without considering the merits and also failed to inform it of the timeliness requirements. PSI further objects to our dismissal of the protest without discussions or a hearing.

We find nothing in PSI's request for reconsideration which meets its burden to show that our prior dismissal was legally or factually incorrect. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). Although the protester appears to attribute the untimely filing of its protest to its not being informed by the agency of our timeliness requirements, we note that our regulations are published in the Federal Register and protesters are charged with constructive notice of their contents. Milwaukee Industrial Clinics, S.C. -- Reconsideration, 65 Comp.Gen. 17 (1985), 85-2 CPD Para. 426. The regulations clearly advise the public of our filing procedures. Therefore, the protester is not excused from complying with our 10-day filing requirements because of its alleged unawareness of these published regulations. Guild Associates, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-224098.2, Oct. 6, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 396.

With regard to PSI's concern that we dismissed its protest without discussions or a hearing, our Bid Protest Regulations provide for dismissal of a protest without development when, as here, the protest is untimely on its face, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(f). We also do not hold a conference where the protest is clearly untimely, and thus a conference would serve no useful purpose. See VIP Limousine Service, Inc., B-225639, Jan. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 98.

The prior dismissal is affirmed.