Skip to main content

B-188636, JUNE 23, 1977

B-188636 Jun 23, 1977
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

DECISION FINDING PROTEST UNTIMELY FILED WITH GAO OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL SINCE FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER PROTESTER WAS NOTIFIED BY CONTRACTING ACTIVITY THAT ITS INITIAL PROTEST WITH ACTIVITY HAD BEEN DENIED IS AFFIRMED AS THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT DECISION WAS IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW. DAAG08-77-B-0019 (SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT) WAS NOT FILED IN OUR OFFICE (OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL) WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER EMD HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY THAT ITS INITIAL PROTEST FILED WITH THE ACTIVITY HAD BEEN DENIED. THE EMD PROTEST WAS FILED UNTIMELY WITH OUR OFFICE AND WAS. ABSENT A SHOWING THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION WAS IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW.

View Decision

B-188636, JUNE 23, 1977

DECISION FINDING PROTEST UNTIMELY FILED WITH GAO OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL SINCE FILED MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER PROTESTER WAS NOTIFIED BY CONTRACTING ACTIVITY THAT ITS INITIAL PROTEST WITH ACTIVITY HAD BEEN DENIED IS AFFIRMED AS THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT DECISION WAS IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW.

EDUCATIONAL MEDIA DIVISION, INC.:

EDUCATIONAL MEDIA DIVISION, INC. (EMD), REQUESTS A RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION EDUCATIONAL MEDIA DIVISION, B-188636, APRIL 5, 1977, 77-1 CPD 236, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT SINCE THE PROTEST AGAINST THE USE OF ALLEGEDLY PROPRIETARY SPECIFICATIONS UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DAAG08-77-B-0019 (SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT) WAS NOT FILED IN OUR OFFICE (OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL) WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER EMD HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY THAT ITS INITIAL PROTEST FILED WITH THE ACTIVITY HAD BEEN DENIED, THE EMD PROTEST WAS FILED UNTIMELY WITH OUR OFFICE AND WAS, THEREFORE, NOT FOR CONSIDERATION ON ITS LEGAL MERITS. WHILE OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. 20.2(C) (1976), PERMIT US TO CONSIDER AN UNTIMELY PROTEST WHERE THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL FINDS "GOOD CAUSE SHOWN" OR "WHERE * * * A PROTEST RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES" WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE JUSTIFY THE USE OF EITHER.

ACCORDINGLY, AND ABSENT A SHOWING THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION WAS IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW, IT IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs