A firm requested reconsideration of a decision regarding defects in a solicitation issued by the Department of the Navy. It was concluded that the protest was untimely. The protester received the Navy's letter acknowledging that revisions were being considered and extending the closing date for receipt of proposals by 2 months. The protesting firm assumed from the letter that the disputed issues w...

A firm protested that technical requirements of the request for proposals issued by the Navy were unduly restrictive. In a letter to the contracting officer dated January 9, 1979, the firm stated its objections and advised that it would protest if revisions were not made within 10 days. The Navy notified the firm that the requested revisions were being reviewed. The firm submitted a proposal by Ap...

DIGEST: PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED BECAUSE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT DECISION DISMISSING PROTEST AS UNTIMELY WAS BASED ON ERROR OF FACT OR LAW. OUR DECISION CONCLUDED THAT SIERRA'S PROTEST WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE AFTER IT FILED AN INITIAL PROTEST ON JANUARY 9. WHEN A PROTEST IS FILED INITIALLY WITH A CONTRACTING AGENCY. EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS WITHOUT CORRECTIVE ACT...

DIGEST: PROTEST ALLEGING RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATIONS FILED WITH GAO MORE THAN 10 DAYS AFTER INITIAL ADVERSE AGENCY ACTION ON PROTEST TO AGENCY IS UNTIMELY. RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS WITHOUT TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION URGED BY PROTESTER IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADVERSE AGENCY ACTION UNDER GAO'S BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. ARE UNDULY RESTRICTIVE. SIERRA STATED IT WOULD PROTEST IF REVISIONS WERE NOT MADE IN 10 DAYS....