Request for Reconsideration

B-201553: Published: Mar 26, 1981. Publicly Released: Mar 26, 1981.

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision which dismissed its protest as untimely. In that decision, it was held that the protest was untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the closing date for receipt of proposals which had been published in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD). The protester's argument that the solicitation was defective was also untimely because it was based on alleged improprieties apparent in the solicitation and was not filed prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. The protester stated that it should not have been charged with notice of the solicitation and its contents, because the notice was inadequate to inform a reasonable person of the solicitation. Since it did not discover the solicitation until after bid opening, it could not have possibily protested the solicitation defects until it had actual notice of the solicitation. GAO reviewed the protester's submission as it related to the timeliness of the protest. It held that, even assuming the date of the publication of the CBD notice should not have been used to determine the timeliness of the protest, the protest was still untimely because it was not filed within 10 days of when the protester actually knew its bases of protest. Regarding the allegation of defects in the solicitation, GAO noted that the protester's correspondence showed that it received a copy of the allegedly defective solicitation 19 days before it filed its protest, which was more than the 10 days allowed by bid protest procedures. Accordingly, the prior decision dismissing the protest was affirmed.