B-211677.2, JUL 13, 1983

B-211677.2: Jul 13, 1983

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Ralph O. White
(202) 512-8278
WhiteRO@gao.gov

Kenneth E. Patton
(202) 512-8205
PattonK@gao.gov

 

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

DIGEST: WHERE PROTESTER REITERATES AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST. A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION DISMISSING THE PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS DENIED. IN THAT DECISION WE FOUND THAT MARTIN'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF APRIL 14. IT REQUESTED THAT A UNITED STATES SENATOR INVESTIGATE PURCHASING IRREGULARITIES IN THE SOLICITATION AND WAS ADVISED ON APRIL 29. WHICH ARE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.

B-211677.2, JUL 13, 1983

DIGEST: WHERE PROTESTER REITERATES AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST, A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PRIOR DECISION DISMISSING THE PROTEST AS UNTIMELY IS DENIED.

MARTIN MACHINERY COMPANY - RECONSIDERATION:

MARTIN MACHINERY COMPANY (MARTIN) REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR PRIOR DECISION, MARTIN MACHINERY COMPANY, B-211677, JUNE 7, 1983, 83-1 CPD , IN WHICH WE REFUSED TO CONSIDER MARTIN'S PROTEST CONCERNING ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. N60530 -83-B-0123.

IN THAT DECISION WE FOUND THAT MARTIN'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY UNDER OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF APRIL 14, 1983, THE DATE MARTIN RECEIVED NOTICE THAT ITS BID HAD BEEN REJECTED. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1983); GBC INC., B-211124, APRIL 4, 1983, 83-1 CPD 353.

OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SPECIFY ANY ERROR OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9 (1983). MARTIN'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION REITERATES THAT ON APRIL 15, 1983, IT REQUESTED THAT A UNITED STATES SENATOR INVESTIGATE PURCHASING IRREGULARITIES IN THE SOLICITATION AND WAS ADVISED ON APRIL 29, 1983, TO FILE A PROTEST WITH GAO. WE CONSIDERED THIS FACT IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST DECISION AND HELD THAT SINCE MARTIN HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OUR TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, MARTIN'S INQUIRY TO THE SENATOR'S OFFICE DID NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR US TO WAIVE OUR TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS. SEE J.S.MATHERS, INC., B-191323, SEPTEMBER 25, 1978, 78-2 CPD 225.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.