PRIOR DECISION THAT PROTEST AGAINST GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING SITE WAS UNTIMELY FILED UNDER 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(A) (1974) IS AFFIRMED SINCE THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON EVENTS THAT PRECEDED OUR MARCH 25 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING PROTEST BASES. 2. WAS UNTIMELY UNDER 4 C.F.R. THE COMMITTEE NOTES THAT THE JUNE 24 DECISION IS APPARENTLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR MARCH 25....

PROTEST AGAINST GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING SITE IS UNTIMELY UNDER 4 C.F.R. SINCE BASIS OF PROTEST WAS KNOWN AS EARLY AS DECEMBER 27. IT WAS NOT SENT UNTIL MORE THAN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER FEBRUARY 21. OFFERS WERE REQUIRED BY FEBRUARY 7. GSA INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT ITS OFFER WAS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SITE BE LOCATED IN SALINAS. THE PROTEST...

The protester requested reconsideration of a prior decision holding that its protest against the geographical limitation of a proposed building site was untimely filed. Upon reconsideration, the prior decision was affirmed since that decision was based on the events that preceded the request by GAO for further information concerning the bases of the protest. The timeliness of protests is determine...

A committee protested the proposed location of a facility, objecting to geographical restrictions in the solicitation. The protest was not filed within 5 days after the basis for protest was known and, as a result, was untimely...