Reconsideration of Timeliness Decision

A firm requested reconsideration of a previous decision which determined that its protest was untimely filed. In its original protest, the protester contended that the Navy failed to cancel a resolicitation even though the low bid was excessive compared to the Government's estimate. The record showed that GAO based its original determination on the fact that the protest was not filed with GAO until nearly 2 months after the basis could have been discovered if inquiry as to the amount of the Government's estimate had been made. GAO believed that the time taken to ascertain the basis for this aspect of the protest was unreasonably long. However, in support of its contention that the issue was timely raised, the protester submitted a copy of a letter it sent to the Navy 3 days after bid opening in which it protested the procurement procedures in the revised invitation for bids (IFB) and stated its view that the lowest bid price exceeded the Government's estimate and should have been rejected. Additionally, the protester submitted as evidence a return letter from the Navy denying its protest. As a result, GAO concluded that the protest was timely filed, and it would consider the protester's contention on the merits. Therefore, with regard to the protester's contention that the resolicited IFB should have been canceled, GAO held that a determination concerning price reasonableness was a matter of administrative discretion which it would not question unless the determination was unreasonable or there was a showing of bad faith or fraud. Moreover, GAO did not believe that, because the low bid on the resolicitation exceeded the Government's estimate price by a greater percentage than the percentage by which the low bid exceeded the Government's estimate in the initially canceled solicitation, the resolicitation price was necessarily unreasonable. Further, the actual reason for the initial cancellation of the IFB was the low bidder's inability to obtain a security clearance not the fact that the low bid exceeded the Government's estimate by 16 percent. Under these circumstances, GAO held that the protester has not shown that the administrative determination was unreasonable, and the protest was denied.