B-229828, Jan 13, 1988, 88-1 CPD 31

B-229828: Jan 13, 1988

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 - Apparent Solicitation Improprieties DIGEST: Protest that solicitation was unduly restrictive is untimely where the protest was filed after bid opening. Diogenes contends that the restrictive nature of the "Evaluation Factors for Award" set forth in the solicitation "precluded the selection of any firm other than the one that was chosen.". Diogenes also refers to discussions it had with contracting personnel after award which confirmed its belief that the agency's intention was to award the contract to a particular bidder. Bid opening was September 28. Our Bid protest Regulations provide that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to bid opening must be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R.

B-229828, Jan 13, 1988, 88-1 CPD 31

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Protest Timeliness - Apparent Solicitation Improprieties DIGEST: Protest that solicitation was unduly restrictive is untimely where the protest was filed after bid opening.

Diogenes Corporation:

Diogenes Corporation protests the award of a contract to any bidder under solicitation number BEP-87-43(N), issued by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Department of the Treasury.

We dismiss the protest as untimely.

Diogenes contends that the restrictive nature of the "Evaluation Factors for Award" set forth in the solicitation "precluded the selection of any firm other than the one that was chosen." It specifically complains that the use of the phrases "recognized authority" and "highly qualified" unfairly favored a single firm. Diogenes also refers to discussions it had with contracting personnel after award which confirmed its belief that the agency's intention was to award the contract to a particular bidder.

Bid opening was September 28, 1987, and Diogenes filed its protest with our Office on December 16. Our Bid protest Regulations provide that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to bid opening must be filed before that time. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1987); see ATD-American Co., B-227234, July 28, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 103. This protest, accordingly, is untimely.

Diogenes contends that the protest should be considered, despite not having been filed before bid opening, because the basis of the protest did not become apparent until after the award of the contract and subsequent discussions with the contracting personnel. Diogenes, however, offers no support for this assertion. The protest is based on the wording of the evaluation factors in the solicitation.

There is no evident reason, and Diogenes has brought no reason to our attention, why the basis of the protest could not have been known prior to bid opening.

We may grant an exception to our timeliness rules for "good cause" when it can be shown that some compelling reason beyond the protester's control prevented the timely filing of a protest. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(c); Filmore Construction Co., B-228656, Aug. 7, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 141. That is not the case here.

The protest is dismissed.

Oct 29, 2020

Oct 28, 2020

Oct 27, 2020

  • Silver Investments, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest.
    B-419028

Looking for more? Browse all our products here