B-227639.2, Jul 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 114

B-227639.2: Jul 29, 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 - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10-day rule DIGEST: Dismissal of untimely protest is affirmed when protest was filed with the General Accounting Office before protester received written notice of award to another firm but more that 10 working days after protester knew the basis of protest. Colbar argued that the personal indemnification agreement was an indication that it was going to be awarded a contract. That the only reason it did not receive the award in December 1986 was a change in contracting officers which delayed award. Colbar noted that a new contracting officer notified it in January 1987 that all firms that had submitted proposals were being requested to submit new best and finals based upon new wage rates.

B-227639.2, Jul 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 114

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10-day rule DIGEST: Dismissal of untimely protest is affirmed when protest was filed with the General Accounting Office before protester received written notice of award to another firm but more that 10 working days after protester knew the basis of protest.

Colbar, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Colbar, Inc., requests that we reconsider our July 8, 1987, dismissal of its protest of award to any other offeror under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-04P-86-EWC-0560, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for commercial facilities management. We affirm the dismissal.

In its initial protest to our Office on July 6, 1987, Colbar stated that it submitted an offer under the RFP on July 25, 1986, a best and final offer on November 5, 1986, and financial information, including a personal indemnification agreement, in December 1986. Colbar argued that the personal indemnification agreement was an indication that it was going to be awarded a contract, and that the only reason it did not receive the award in December 1986 was a change in contracting officers which delayed award. Colbar contended that the delay in award allowed the opportunity for information leaks. Colbar noted that a new contracting officer notified it in January 1987 that all firms that had submitted proposals were being requested to submit new best and finals based upon new wage rates. Colbar protested that the revision should only have concerned itself, since it should have already been awarded the contract in December 1986.

We dismissed Colbar's protest as untimely, because Colbar was advised by GSA in January 1987 that all offerors were being requested to submit revisions based upon new wage rates, but did not protest GSA's actions to our Office until July 6. Our Bid Protest Regulations require that such a protest be filed not later than 10 working days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1986). Since Colbar's protest was not filed with our Office until July 6, several months after it knew about the GSA conduct to which it objected, its protest was untimely. See Jay-Em Corp., B-226386, Mar. 16, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 291.

On reconsideration, Colbar argues that its protest is timely because it did not receive GSA's notice of award to another contractor until July 14, and, therefore, it should have had 10 days from July 14 to file a protest. As can be seen from our discussion above, however, the date of Colbar's receipt of the notice of award is not relevant to the timeliness of its protest. Rather, the timeliness of Colbar's protest is measured from the date it knew of the basis for its protest, i.e., the date it became aware of the GSA's request for best and finals to which it objected.

Our dismissal of the prior protest is affirmed.