B-241912.2, Jul 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where protester has not shown that previous decision. In which protest issues were dismissed as untimely. Was erroneous. We held that the agency's evaluation of proposals was fair and reasonable and in accordance with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. That because CEI's and DBT's proposals were reasonably determined to be essentially technically equal. We determined these issues were untimely because they were not filed within 10 working days after the bases of protest were known or should have been known. It did not allege that these protest grounds were based on information contained in the agency report.
B-241912.2, Jul 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where protester has not shown that previous decision, in which protest issues were dismissed as untimely, was erroneous, and the protest issues do not present significant issues.
Attorneys
Correa Enterprises, Inc.-- Reconsideration:
Correa Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) requests reconsideration of our decision Correa Enters., Inc., B-241912, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 249. In that decision, we denied CEI's protest challenging the award of a contract to Diversified Business Technologies, Inc. (DBT) under request for proposals (RFP) No. BIA-M00-90-21, issued by the Department of the Interior for on- site programming maintenance and telecommunications support services for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Data Systems, National Technical Support Center.
We deny the request for reconsideration.
In our decision, we held that the agency's evaluation of proposals was fair and reasonable and in accordance with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria, and that because CEI's and DBT's proposals were reasonably determined to be essentially technically equal, price properly became the determining factor in the selection of DBT as the awardee. We also dismissed as untimely CEI's supplemental protest arguments, first raised in its comments to the agency report, concerning the composition of the technical evaluation team and alleged conflicts of interest with respect to the award of this and other contracts. We determined these issues were untimely because they were not filed within 10 working days after the bases of protest were known or should have been known. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1991). We stated that where a protester initially files a timely protest and later supplements it with new and independent grounds of protest, the latter raised allegations must independently satisfy the timeliness requirements since our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. EER Sys. Corp., 69 Comp.Gen. 207 (1990), 90-1 CPD Para. 123.
In its request for reconsideration, CEI now states that it learned of its supplemental grounds of protest after receiving the agency report and after receiving documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. CEI requests that we consider its supplemental grounds of protest pursuant to the significant issue exception to our timeliness requirements as provided by 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(c).
Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a).
Here, the record shows that on October 31, 1990, CEI filed its initial protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals. On December 5, the agency filed its administrative report and on December 15, CEI filed comments to the agency report. For the first time in its comments to the agency report, CEI challenged the composition of the technical evaluation team and alleged conflicts of interest in the award of this and other contracts. In its comments, CEI made no attempt to establish the timeliness of these supplemental grounds of protest. It did not allege that these protest grounds were based on information contained in the agency report. Based on the record, we found that these protest issues were not timely filed.
In its request for reconsideration, CEI has not provided any information to establish that our conclusion that these supplemental issues were untimely was erroneous. CEI has still not identified when it first learned of the supplemental grounds of protest, despite having the opportunity to do so on reconsideration. Since CEI has not shown any error of fact or law regarding our dismissal of these issues, there is no basis to reconsider this aspect of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12.
Moreover, we will not now consider CEI's supplemental grounds of protest pursuant to the significant issue exception to our timeliness rules. The significant issue exception is strictly construed and sparingly used to prevent the timeliness rules from becoming meaningless. We will invoke it where the protest raises an issue of first impression that would be of widespread interest to the procurement community or where the matter has not been considered on the merits in prior decisions. B&S Transport, Inc., B-240906.2; B-240909.2, Sept. 14, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 216; Microeconomic Applications, Inc.-- Recon., B-299749.3, Apr. 26, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 404. Here, these matters generally have been addressed in previous cases, see, e.g., Visucom Prods., Inc., B-240847, Dec. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 494; Suncoast Scientific Inc., B-240689, Dec. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 468; Naddaf Int'l Trading Co., B-238768.2, Oct. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 316, and are not of widespread interest to the procurement community.
In view of our conclusion, no useful purpose would be served in conducting a hearing as requested. The request for reconsideration is denied.