B-188830: Apr 28, 1977

The protester objected to any award under a bid solicitation which contained three separate requirements, which the protester alleged collectively operated to eliminate all prospective bidders save one. Since the protester filed after bid opening, and since the alleged solicitation impropriety was apparent prior to bid opening, the protest was untimely and not for consideration...

B-188830: Apr 28, 1977

PROTEST FILED AFTER BID OPENING AGAINST ALLEGED SOLICITATION IMPROPRIETY WHICH WAS APPARENT PRIOR TO BID OPENING IS UNTIMELY AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 20.2(B)(1) OF GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. THE ALLEGED RESTRICTIVE NATURE OF THE SOLICITATION WAS NOT OBJECTED TO AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO BID OPENING. A PROTEST BASED UPON AN ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY IN A SOLICITATION WHICH IS APPARENT PRIOR...

B-188830: Jun 3, 1977

PROTESTER REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISION DISMISSING PROTEST WHICH ALLEGED THAT IFB WAS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE BUT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AFTER BID OPENING. EVEN IF GAO ACCEPTS PROTESTER'S POSITION THAT RESTRICTIVENESS OF IFB WAS NOT APPARENT UNTIL IDENTITIES OF BIDDERS WERE KNOWN. PROTEST IS UNTIMELY SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF WHEN PROTESTER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF BASIS FOR PROTE...

B-188830: Jun 3, 1977

The protester requested reconsideration of a decision denying consideration of the merits of a protest because it was untimely filed. Even if GAO had accepted the protester's position that the restrictiveness of the invitation for bids was not apparent until the identities of the bidders were known, the protest was untimely since it was not filed within 10 days after the basis of the protest was k...