A firm requested reconsideration of a GAO decision which denied its protest against the Army's failure to invite it to bid under an invitation for bids for the reprocurement of the terminated portion of its contract. The protest was denied on the grounds that competition and a reasonable price had been obtained on the reprocurement and it did not appear that the contracting officer intended to exclude the protester from bidding. The decision also dismissed the protest as untimely. The question of whether a contract should be terminated for default and whether the defaulted contract should be held liable for the excess cost of reprocurement is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Since the protester intended the matter of whether the contracting officer intentionally excluded it from participating in the reprocurement to have a bearing upon whether the protester should be held liable for excess costs, the protester was left to its remedy before ASBCA. The protester also contended that its protest against the award was timely in that it did not know the basis of protest until the agency report on the protest was received. However, the protester knew of the adverse agency action more than 10 working days before its protest was filed with GAO. Since bid protest procedures require that a protest be filed within 10 working days after the basis of the protest was known or should have been known, the prior dismissal was affirmed.
Skip to Highlights