[Second Request for Reconsideration of Dismissed Protest Under Army Solicitation for Dredging]

A firm requested further reconsideration of its dismissed protest against an Army solicitation for dredging. GAO had held that the protester untimely: (1) filed its protest against the solicitation's small business set-aside provision; and (2) presented new protest information in its initial request for reconsideration. In its request for further reconsideration, the protester contended that it did not present information regarding its protest's timeliness until its reconsideration request because it had no reason to believe that GAO would consider the protest untimely. GAO held that the protester: (1) was required to include in its initial protest the information to support its allegations regarding the protest's timeliness; and (2) failed to show any error of law or fact which would warrant reconsideration of the original decision. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was denied.