B-229674.2, Dec 18, 1987, 87-2 CPD 610
Highlights
Is affirmed since the original dismissal was correct based on the information provided by the protester. Who is responsible for providing the proper information in a timely manner. We dismissed the protest because it was not filed within 10 working days of the date the basis of the protest was known to National. The protest was filed with our Office on November 23. National requests reconsideration on the basis that the month stated in its protest letter should have been "November" rather than "October" and that. Its protest was filed timely. A protester's request for reconsideration is to present a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds warranting reversal or modification of a decision and specify errors of law or information not previously considered.
B-229674.2, Dec 18, 1987, 87-2 CPD 610
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Information Submission Timeliness PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - Protest Timeliness - 10-day Rule DIGEST: Dismissal of a protest, which appeared untimely on its face because the protester cited the wrong month in its protest letter, is affirmed since the original dismissal was correct based on the information provided by the protester, who is responsible for providing the proper information in a timely manner.
National Asbestos Consultants, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration:
National Asbestos Consultants, Inc., requests reconsideration of our November 24, 1987, dismissal of its protest in connection with Veterans Administration solicitation No. 623-3-88 for industrial hygienist work. We dismissed the protest because it was not filed within 10 working days of the date the basis of the protest was known to National. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1987). The protest was filed with our Office on November 23; the protest letter indicated that National knew the basis of its protest on October 13. National requests reconsideration on the basis that the month stated in its protest letter should have been "November" rather than "October" and that, therefore, its protest was filed timely.
Under 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a), a protester's request for reconsideration is to present a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds warranting reversal or modification of a decision and specify errors of law or information not previously considered. Information not previously considered means information that was not available to the protester when the initial protest was filed with our Office. Otherwise, a protester would be permitted to present its protest in a piecemeal fashion and possibly disrupt the procurement process indefinitely. Marco Crane & Rigging Co.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-220618.2, Nov. 27, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 612.
In view of the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3554(a)(1) (Supp. III 1985), for the expeditious resolution of bid protests, our reconsideration of a protest on the basis of information that was readily available to the protester when the protest was initially filed would be, in the absence of a showing of good cause for the failure to present the proper information in a timely manner, inconsistent with the statutory mandate. Marco Crane & Rigging Co.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-220618.2, supra.
National knew the correct date upon which it had learned the basis of its protest at the time it filed its protest with our Office. The protester did not timely present the correct date so that we could properly determine the timeliness of the protest. 8ince our original dismissal was correct on the basis of the information furnished by National in its protest, we affirm our dismissal.