A firm requested that GAO modify a decision sustaining its protest against the Army's issuance of a delivery order to another firm for the lease, installation, maintenance, and technical support of automatic data processing equipment. The protester requested that GAO recommend corrective action, which it declined to do because the protester had failed to file its protest in a timely manner and because it understood that a termination of the lease would subject the government to significant termination costs. The protester attempted to demonstrate extenuating circumstances for the untimely filing of the protest and suggested that a recompetition would result in an actual savings to the government. A determination as to whether an improperly awarded contract should be terminated involves, among other factors, the extent of performance and the impact of a termination on the procuring agency's mission. Despite being aware of these factors, the firm did not file a protest until more than 4 months after the award. As a result of the delayed filing, GAO did not issue a decision until a substantial period of the lease had been performed. GAO believed that the firm's failure to timely and diligently pursue its protest militates against disrupting the contracting agency's mission with a recommendation that the contract be terminated and recompeted. Accordingly, GAO declined to modify its decision.
Skip to Highlights