B-247314.3, Feb 24, 1992

B-247314.3, Feb 24, 1992

DIGEST

Attorneys

Arian Fashions, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Arian Fashions, Inc. requests reconsideration of our January 24, 1992, dismissal of its protest concerning its elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DLA100-91-R 0098, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for coats. We dismissed the protest because the record established that Arian's initial agency-level protest was untimely filed.

We deny the request.

noted in our decision, our Bid Protest Regulations provide that protests not based on alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed not later than 10 working days after the basis for protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1991). Our Regulations also provide that a matter initially protested to an agency will be considered only if the initial protest to the agency was filed within the time limits for filing a protest with our Office. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3); Tandy Constr., Inc., B-238619, Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 206. Thus, to be timely under our Regulations, Arian's agency level protest would have to have been filed within 10 working days after it learned of the basis of its protest. Documents Arian submitted with its protest showed that Arian was notified of its elimination from the competitive range on December 9, 1991, but Arian did not protest the matter to the agency until December 30, 14 working days later (accounting for the December 25 federal holiday). Thus, Arian's subsequent protest to our Office properly was dismissed as untimely under the above standard.

As we noted in our decision, in order to prevent our timeliness requirements from becoming meaningless, exceptions are strictly construed and rarely used. Air Inc.-- Recon., B-238220.2, Jan. 29, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 129. Id. The only exceptions to these requirements are where there was good cause for the untimely filing (some compelling reason beyond the protester's control prevented the protester from filing a timely protest) or a significant issue (one of widespread interest to the procurement community that has not been considered before) is involved. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(c); Grant Tech. Servs., B-235231.2, May 26, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 514.

In its reconsideration request, Arian essentially asserts the "good cause" exception in arguing that the Hanukkah and Christmas holidays prevented it from obtaining prompt advice from legal counsel. However, we do not consider the occurrence of holidays to be a compelling reason, beyond the protester's control, for delaying the filing of a protest, and we will not reconsider Arian's protest on this basis. See Surface Combustion, Inc.-- Recon., B-230112.2, Mar. 3, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 230.

Arian also appears to argue that we should consider its protest notwithstanding its untimeliness because another protest of the same solicitation currently is pending in our Office. However, the existence of another pending protest of the same solicitation does not bring Arian's protest within either of the two exceptions to our timeliness requirements.

As Arian has neither shown that our dismissal was based on any errors of fact or law, nor offered new information that would warrant its reversal or modification, the request for reconsideration is denied. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a); R.E. Scherrer, Inc.-- Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.