B-236045.2, Aug 9, 1989, 89-2 CPD 122

B-236045.2: Aug 9, 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 - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: Protest of agency refusal to extend time for receipt of offers filed (received) at General Accounting Office after closing date for receipt of offers was properly dismissed as untimely. AZTEK protested that there was an inadequate amount of time allowed under the solicitation to prepare proposals. 88-2 CPD Para. 604. dismissed AZTEK's protest as untimely because its protest was filed after June 28. Which was before the June 28 closing date. The term "filed" is defined by our Bid Protest Regulations to mean receipt by the General Accounting Office. 4 C.F.R. Although AZTEK's protest letter was dated June 26.

B-236045.2, Aug 9, 1989, 89-2 CPD 122

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - Apparent solicitation improprieties DIGEST: Protest of agency refusal to extend time for receipt of offers filed (received) at General Accounting Office after closing date for receipt of offers was properly dismissed as untimely.

AZTEK-- Reconsideration:

AZTEK requests that we reconsider our July 10, 1989, dismissal as untimely of the firm's protest of the agency's refusal to extend time for submission of offers under solicitation DAMD17-89-R-0038. The protested solicitation covered an upgrade to an existing microcomputer system at the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.

By letter sent on June 26, 1989, and received by our Office on July 3, 1989, AZTEK protested that there was an inadequate amount of time allowed under the solicitation to prepare proposals. To be timely under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protest based on an alleged impropriety in a solicitation, such as the one alleged by AZTEK, must be filed prior to the time set for the receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1988); Hamilton Enters., Inc., B-230736.6, Dec. 20, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 604. dismissed AZTEK's protest as untimely because its protest was filed after June 28, 1989, the closing date for receipt of proposals.

AZTEK now requests that we reconsider our dismissal on the ground that it mailed its protest on June 26, 1989, which was before the June 28 closing date.

The term "filed" is defined by our Bid Protest Regulations to mean receipt by the General Accounting Office. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(g). Although AZTEK's protest letter was dated June 26, prior to closing, it was not received by our Office, and therefore not officially filed, until July 3, 1989 at 1:13 p.m. Accordingly, we find that the protest was properly dismissed as untimely.

The prior dismissal is affirmed.