B-182971, FEB 6, 1975

B-182971: Feb 6, 1975

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

PROTEST AGAINST RESOLICITATION OF PROCUREMENT FILED NEARLY 4 MONTHS AFTER CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS UNDER RESOLICITATION IS UNTIMELY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS AND IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION. IT PROTESTED TO OUR OFFICE AGAINST THE AWARD TO ANOTHER CONCERN AFTER THE AWARD TO NYTEK WAS RECALLED. THE LAW FIRM WAS ADVISED THAT THE PROTEST WOULD BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS. THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST AGAINST THE SUBSEQUENT AWARD IS THAT IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE NAVY TO RECALL THE AWARD TO NYTEK AND RESOLICIT THE PROCUREMENT UNDER A NEW SOLICITATION AFTER ITS PRICE WAS EXPOSED. THE RESOLICITATION WAS ISSUED AUGUST 27. THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS WAS SEPTEMBER 11.

B-182971, FEB 6, 1975

PROTEST AGAINST RESOLICITATION OF PROCUREMENT FILED NEARLY 4 MONTHS AFTER CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS UNDER RESOLICITATION IS UNTIMELY UNDER BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS AND IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION.

NYTEK ELECTRONICS:

AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE LAW FIRM OF SLEIZER, MERRY & WINOCUR FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S FINAL DECISION DENYING THE CLAIM OF NYTEK ELECTRONICS FOR AN ALLEGED TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF CONTRACT N00140- 74-C-0699 (NAVY REGIONAL PROCUREMENT OFFICE, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA), IT PROTESTED TO OUR OFFICE AGAINST THE AWARD TO ANOTHER CONCERN AFTER THE AWARD TO NYTEK WAS RECALLED.

BY LETTER OF JANUARY 9, 1975, THE LAW FIRM WAS ADVISED THAT THE PROTEST WOULD BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS.

THE BASIS OF THE PROTEST AGAINST THE SUBSEQUENT AWARD IS THAT IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE NAVY TO RECALL THE AWARD TO NYTEK AND RESOLICIT THE PROCUREMENT UNDER A NEW SOLICITATION AFTER ITS PRICE WAS EXPOSED. HOWEVER, THE RESOLICITATION WAS ISSUED AUGUST 27, 1974; THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS WAS SEPTEMBER 11, 1974; AND AWARD THEREUNDER WAS MADE OCTOBER 16, 1974. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS IN 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(A) STATE:

"*** PROTESTS BASED UPON ALLEGED IMPROPRIETIES IN ANY TYPE OF SOLICITATION WHICH ARE APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS SHALL BE FILED PRIOR TO BID OPENING OR THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. ***"

THE PROTEST DATED JANUARY 3, 1975, RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE JANUARY 6, 1975, NEARLY 4 MONTHS AFTER THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS, IS THUS UNTIMELY. ACCORDINGLY, CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE IN THE JANUARY 9 LETTER, THE PROTEST IS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION AND NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE ON THE MATTER.

Nov 16, 2018

Nov 15, 2018

Nov 14, 2018

Nov 9, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here