Skip to main content

B-214011.2, JUL 10, 1984, 84-2 CPD

B-214011.2 Jul 10, 1984
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

WHERE PROTESTER SUPPLEMENTS ITS ORIGINAL TIMELY PROTEST WITH A NEW GROUND OF PROTEST MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. THE NEW GROUND IS UNTIMELY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS. PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION WHERE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ERROR OF LAW OR FACT WHICH WOULD WARRANT REVERSAL OF THAT DECISION. FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PROTESTED UNTIL THE PROTESTER'S MARCH 21. RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY REPORT MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF WHEN THE BASIS WAS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN. TRS ASSERTS THAT THIS ISSUE WAS TIMELY RAISED. RAISED OVER 2 MONTHS AFTER THE INITIAL PROTEST WAS FILED AND THE DATE THE BASIS OF PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN.

View Decision

B-214011.2, JUL 10, 1984, 84-2 CPD

CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - TIMELINESS OF PROTEST - DATE BASIS OF PROTEST MADE KNOWN TO PROTESTER DIGEST: 1. PROTEST BASIS NOT RAISED IN PROTESTER'S INITIAL SUBMISSION MUST INDEPENDENTLY SATISFY THE TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. WHERE PROTESTER SUPPLEMENTS ITS ORIGINAL TIMELY PROTEST WITH A NEW GROUND OF PROTEST MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE BASIS FOR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, THE NEW GROUND IS UNTIMELY AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS. CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED 2. PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED ON RECONSIDERATION WHERE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ERROR OF LAW OR FACT WHICH WOULD WARRANT REVERSAL OF THAT DECISION.

TRS DESIGN & CONSULTING SERVICES -- RECONSIDERATION:

TRS DESIGN & CONSULTING SERVICES (TRS), ON BEHALF OF RICK J. LEWIS, REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION IN THE MATTER OF TRS DESIGN & CONSULTING SERVICES, B-214011, MAY 29, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 578. THAT DECISION, WE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY ONE OF TRS'S ARGUMENTS -- THE ALLEGED IMPROPER AGENCY AMENDMENT OF A SOLICITATION DELIVERY DATE REQUIREMENT (JANUARY 1, 1984), WITHOUT ISSUING A FORMAL AMENDMENT. FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PROTESTED UNTIL THE PROTESTER'S MARCH 21, 1984, RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY REPORT MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF WHEN THE BASIS WAS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, JANUARY 2, 1984. SEE 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1983); TRACOR MARINE, INC., B-207285, JUNE 6, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 604.

IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, TRS ASSERTS THAT THIS ISSUE WAS TIMELY RAISED, AS A PART OF ITS BROADER INITIAL PROTEST DATED JANUARY 2, 1984. WE DISAGREE. WE DO NOT VIEW AN ALLEGED FAILURE TO ISSUE A FORMAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO DELIVERY DATE AS BEING COVERED UNDER TRS'S INITIAL PROTEST RELATING TO THE ALLEGED LACK OF MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS OR THE ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY OF THE EVALUATION OF OFFERS.

OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTEMPLATE PIECEMEAL PRESENTATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROTESTS. SEE TRANSIAC CORPORATION, B-210168, MAY 23, 1983, 83-1 CPD PARA. 554. ACCORDINGLY, THIS PROTEST ISSUE, RAISED OVER 2 MONTHS AFTER THE INITIAL PROTEST WAS FILED AND THE DATE THE BASIS OF PROTEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS BEING UNTIMELY FILED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(B)(2) (1983).

SINCE TRS HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IN OUR INITIAL DECISION, IT IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs