B-245427.3, Nov 19, 1991
Highlights
DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a protest as untimely is dismissed. We dismissed as untimely SMP's protest that the determination of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) that SMP was not a responsible bidder. Was predicated on bad faith actions of the procuring agency that misled the SBA during its COC review. We dismissed SMP's protest because it was filed with our Office on August 28. SMP's September 10 submission was not dismissed because the issues raised were not supported by documentation. Because the issues themselves were untimely raised. Simply has no bearing on our determination that the issues themselves were untimely raised. The request for reconsideration is denied. /1/ SMP submitted a letter dated August 5 to the agency "protesting" the award of a contract but failed to specify any basis for protest.
B-245427.3, Nov 19, 1991
DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a protest as untimely is dismissed, where the protester, rather than showing that the prior dismissal contained either errors of fact or law, provides documentation that allegedly "confirms" the issues previously raised, but has no bearing on the timeliness of the protest originally submitted.
Attorneys
State Machine Products-- Reconsideration:
State Machine Products (SMP), a small business concern, requests reconsideration of our decision in State Mach. Prods., B-245427.2, Sept. 24, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 272. In that decision, we dismissed as untimely SMP's protest that the determination of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) that SMP was not a responsible bidder, and that the subsequent denial of a certificate of competency (COC) by the Small Business Administration (SBA), in connection with SMP's bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DLA400-91-B-1868, was predicated on bad faith actions of the procuring agency that misled the SBA during its COC review.
We dismissed SMP's protest because it was filed with our Office on August 28, and supplemented by letter dated September 10, more than 10 working days after August 5, when SMP knew of its basis of protest. /1/
SMP requests that we reconsider our dismissal of its protest because it has obtained, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, documentation which "confirms" the facts related to the issues it first raised on September 10. However, SMP's September 10 submission was not dismissed because the issues raised were not supported by documentation, but because the issues themselves were untimely raised. That SMP now possesses documentation, which it alleges supports the issues it first argued in its September 10 submission, simply has no bearing on our determination that the issues themselves were untimely raised.
To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). SMP has made no such showing here; it has not alleged any facts indicating why its August 28 and September 10 submissions constituted a timely protest.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
/1/ SMP submitted a letter dated August 5 to the agency "protesting" the award of a contract but failed to specify any basis for protest. SMP's August 28 "protest" to our Office similarly stated no basis for protest. These submissions, which did not allege any facts regarding the procurement, were not sufficient to constitute a protest because our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of a protest, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(c)(4) (1991), and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(e). Only in SMP's submission dated September 10 did SMP state its basis for protest, and this was untimely filed.