B-194491, JUN 12, 1979
Highlights
DIGEST: QUESTION WHETHER AGENCY MAY PROPERLY REQUEST BID EXTENSION IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WARRANTING EXCEPTION TO GAO TIMELINESS STANDARDS. AWARD WAS APPARENTLY NOT MADE TO SINGLETON. WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST SINCE IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. SINGLETON CONTENDS THAT ITS PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS BECAUSE IT RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. OUR PROCEDURES DO PERMIT CONSIDERATION OF UNTIMELY PROTESTS WHERE ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES ARE RAISED. 4 C.F.R. THE SIGNIFICANT ISSUE EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO MATTERS WHICH ARE OF WIDESPREAD INTEREST TO THE PROCUREMENT COMMUNITY (A PRINCIPLE OF BROAD APPLICATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE) AND IS INVOKED SPARINGLY SO THAT THE TIMELINESS STANDARDS DO NOT BECOME MEANINGLESS.
B-194491, JUN 12, 1979
DIGEST: QUESTION WHETHER AGENCY MAY PROPERLY REQUEST BID EXTENSION IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WARRANTING EXCEPTION TO GAO TIMELINESS STANDARDS.
SINGLETON ENTERPRISES - RECONSIDERATION:
SINGLETON ENTERPRISES (SINGLETON) REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION SINGLETON ENTERPRISES, B-194491, APRIL 18, 1979, 79-1 CPD 276, DISMISSING ITS PROTEST AS UNTIMELY.
SINGLETON PROTESTED THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO THE SECOND LOW BIDDER UNDER SOLICITATION NO. DABT02-78-B-0140. AWARD WAS APPARENTLY NOT MADE TO SINGLETON, THE LOW BIDDER, BECAUSE OF ITS REFUSAL TO GRANT THE GOVERNMENT A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF ITS BID ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST SINCE IT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. PART 20 (1978).
SINGLETON CONTENDS THAT ITS PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS BECAUSE IT RAISES ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. OUR PROCEDURES DO PERMIT CONSIDERATION OF UNTIMELY PROTESTS WHERE ISSUES SIGNIFICANT TO PROCUREMENT PRACTICES ARE RAISED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.2(C).
HOWEVER, THE SIGNIFICANT ISSUE EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO MATTERS WHICH ARE OF WIDESPREAD INTEREST TO THE PROCUREMENT COMMUNITY (A PRINCIPLE OF BROAD APPLICATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE) AND IS INVOKED SPARINGLY SO THAT THE TIMELINESS STANDARDS DO NOT BECOME MEANINGLESS. WE HAVE HELD THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REQUEST BID EXTENSIONS, ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR EACH BIDDER TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WISHES TO EXTEND ITS BID. SEE TENNESSEE APPAREL CORPORATION, B-194461, APRIL 9, 1979, 79-1 CPD 247. THUS, WE SEE NOTHING IN THE PRESENT CASE TO WARRANT INVOKING THIS EXCEPTION.
OUR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.