B-240970.2, Oct 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

B-240970.2: Oct 16, 1990

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

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

Is denied where request only contains a new ground of protest not contained in the original submission and does not otherwise question the rationale for the dismissal of the original protest as untimely. The RFQ was issued by E.G.&G. " although Dundas did not allege that any late quotations were improperly received. It was not filed prior to the date quotations were due under the RFQ. Which was not known to it until after a purchase order had been issued to Martin. There is no reference in Dundas' original protest dated August 29.

B-240970.2, Oct 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of protest, previously dismissed as untimely filed under Bid Protest Regulations, is denied where request only contains a new ground of protest not contained in the original submission and does not otherwise question the rationale for the dismissal of the original protest as untimely.

Attorneys

Dundas Office Interiors, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Dundas Office Interiors, Inc. requests, by letter of September 11, 1990, that we reconsider our August 31 dismissal of the company's August 29 protest against the issuance of a purchase order for office furniture to Martin Stationers, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 6361-JMB- 41-90. The RFQ was issued by E.G.&G. Idaho, Inc., a prime contractor for the Department of Energy at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratories in Idaho Falls, Idaho.

We deny the request.

In its original protest, Dundas identified certain alleged improprieties in the RFQ and in the "bidding process;" specifically, that the agency "lacked proper controls on the submittal of bids," although Dundas did not allege that any late quotations were improperly received. We dismissed the protest, in part, as untimely filed since the protest concerned solicitation defects, but it was not filed prior to the date quotations were due under the RFQ. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1990).

Dundas' request for reconsideration states only that the "improprieties" it had raised "included" acceptance of a quotation from Martin Stationers which did not comply with the specifications, which was not known to it until after a purchase order had been issued to Martin. Dundas does not otherwise question the rationale for the dismissal of its protest as untimely. There is no reference in Dundas' original protest dated August 29, however, to a failure by Martin to meet the RFQ's specifications. /1/ Dundas' request for reconsideration therefore provides no basis for us to reconsider our August 31 dismissal notice. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a).

We deny the request.

May 22, 2018

May 21, 2018

May 18, 2018

May 17, 2018

May 16, 2018

May 11, 2018

May 10, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here