B-235406, May 12, 1989, 89-1 CPD 456

B-235406: May 12, 1989

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 DIGEST: Protest concerning a bidder's revision of its bid price when extending its bid acceptance period is untimely when filed more than 10 working days after the basis for protest was known. The Air Force requested bidders to review their bids for errors and confirm their bids if no mistakes were found. The Air Force rejected Tech Support's bid since the extension of its bid acceptance period was not unconditional. A protest of other than apparent solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 working days after the basis for protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. Tech-Support was on notice that a unilateral revision of its bid price would not be accepted as of April 10.

B-235406, May 12, 1989, 89-1 CPD 456

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protest concerning a bidder's revision of its bid price when extending its bid acceptance period is untimely when filed more than 10 working days after the basis for protest was known.

Technical Support Services, Inc.:

Technical Support Services, Inc. (Tech-Support), protests the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F32605-88 B0001, issued by the Air Force for commissary shelf stocking, and custodial and warehousing services at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. Tech-Support argues that the increase in its bid price submitted after bid opening in response to the Air Force's request for a 60-day extension to its bid acceptance period does not warrant rejection of its bid.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

The Air Force issued the IFB on December 20, 1988. By letter of March 22, 1989, the Air Force requested bidders to review their bids for errors and confirm their bids if no mistakes were found. On March 31, the Air Force requested bidders to extend their bid acceptance period by 60 days. Tech-Support responded on April 3, confirming that its bid contained no mistakes, but increasing its bid price. By letter of April 10, the Air Force notified Tech-Support that any unilateral revision of its bid without clear and concise evidence of a mistake would render its bid nonresponsive. Tech-Support responded on April 10, extending its bid acceptance period but again increasing its original bid price. By letter of April 24, the Air Force rejected Tech Support's bid since the extension of its bid acceptance period was not unconditional. Tech-Support protested to our Office on May 4.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest of other than apparent solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 working days after the basis for protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1988). Tech-Support was on notice that a unilateral revision of its bid price would not be accepted as of April 10, 1989, when the Air Force informed the firm that its bid would be rejected if the firm changed its bid price without clear and concise evidence of a mistake. Tech- Support did not protest the Air Force's notification to our Office until May 4, more than 10 working days after the basis for its protest was known. Therefore, Tech-Support's protest is untimely.

In any event, the protest is without merit. A bidder may not revise its bid price when granting an extension of its bid acceptance period, since this would be tantamount to submission of a new bid after bid opening. See Singleton Contracting Corp., B-201228.2, June 23, 1981, 81-1 CPD Para. 520.

The protest is dismissed.