B-184832, JUN 17, 1976
Highlights
IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITH GAO UNTIL MAY 25. UAE CONTENDS THAT IT WAS NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE AIR FORCE'S PROTEST REPORT. THAT OUR DECISION'S CONCLUSION ON THE USE OF A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WAS INCORRECT. UAE'S REQUEST WAS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE ON MAY 25. PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: "REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE DECISION WAS RENDERED. COPIES OF IT WERE MAILED BOTH TO UAE AND TO ITS WASHINGTON. IT MUST REASONABLY BE CONCLUDED THAT UAE EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE BASIS OF ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN APRIL 1976.
B-184832, JUN 17, 1976
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PROTEST DECISION RENDERED MARCH 30, 1976, IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITH GAO UNTIL MAY 25, 1976.
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN ENTERPRISES, INC.:
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN ENTERPRISES, INC. (UAE), HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION WHICH DENIED ITS PROTEST AGAINST AN AIR FORCE PROCUREMENT OF SECURITY SERVICES (UNIVERSAL AMERICAN ENTERPRISES, INC., B-184832, MARCH 30, 1976, 76-1 CPD 206). UAE CONTENDS THAT IT WAS NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE AIR FORCE'S PROTEST REPORT, AND THAT OUR DECISION'S CONCLUSION ON THE USE OF A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WAS INCORRECT.
UAE'S REQUEST WAS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE ON MAY 25, 1976. IN THIS REGARD, SECTION 20.9(B) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 40 FED. REG. 17979 (1975), PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
"REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION IS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE TERM 'FILED' AS USED IN THIS SECTION MEANS RECEIPT IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE."
UAE'S REQUEST DOES NOT INDICATE THE DATE ON WHICH IT RECEIVED OUR MARCH 30, 1976, DECISION. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE DECISION WAS RENDERED, COPIES OF IT WERE MAILED BOTH TO UAE AND TO ITS WASHINGTON, DC., COUNSEL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MUST REASONABLY BE CONCLUDED THAT UAE EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE BASIS OF ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN APRIL 1976.
ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION.