B-241614.2, Nov 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD 426

B-241614.2: Nov 26, 1990

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protest filed with the General Accounting Office (GAO) more than 10 working days after protester knew of its basis for protest was properly dismissed as untimely. We summarily dismissed the protest as untimely because it was not filed within 10 working days of the date the basis for protest was first known or should have been known. That is. The protest is untimely. Shaw would have had to file its protest with this Office. Its protest filed here on August 6 was untimely and will not be considered on the merits.

B-241614.2, Nov 26, 1990, 90-2 CPD 426

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - Protest timeliness - 10 day rule DIGEST: Protest filed with the General Accounting Office (GAO) more than 10 working days after protester knew of its basis for protest was properly dismissed as untimely. The fact that the protester first filed its protest with the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, which dismissed it as not involving a matter within the Board's jurisdiction, does not toll the time for filing with GAO.

Attorneys

Tom Shaw, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Tom Shaw, Inc. requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest against the cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DTCG80-89-B- 00145, issued by the United States Coast Guard. We dismissed the protest because Shaw did not file it in a timely manner.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The Coast Guard canceled the solicitation on August 2, 1989. Shaw received notification of this cancellation on August 8. After what the protester characterizes as "several unfruitful attempts to gather data" from the agency concerning the cancellation, Shaw protested the cancellation to the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals on April 2, 1990. The Board dismissed Shaw's protest for lack of jurisdiction on June 29. Shaw then protested to our Office on August 6, and we summarily dismissed the protest as untimely because it was not filed within 10 working days of the date the basis for protest was first known or should have been known. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1990).

In its request for reconsideration, Shaw argues that the pendency of its protest before the Board should toll the running of the 10 days allowed for filing a protest with our Office.

Even if considered under circumstances most favorable to the protester-- that is, Shaw first became aware of its basis for protest April 2 when it filed its protest with the Board-- the protest is untimely. Shaw's protest to the Board does not toll the time for filing with our Office. See Sho-Ge, Inc., B-234772, Mar. 24, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 303. Thus, Shaw would have had to file its protest with this Office, at the latest, within 10 days of April 2. Accordingly, its protest filed here on August 6 was untimely and will not be considered on the merits.

Nov 25, 2020

Nov 24, 2020

Nov 20, 2020

Nov 19, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here