Skip to Highlights
Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where on reconsideration protester contends that it was not read draft rejection letter as stated in the decision but does not deny that at the same time it was orally informed of the agency's rejection of its offer. We dismissed the protest because we concluded that Swafford filed its protest more than 10 days after it was informed orally that its offers had been rejected. The protester argues that contrary to what is stated in our decision it was not read a draft of the contracting officer's letter rejecting its offer in early November. While not denying that it was in fact informed orally at that time that its offers had been rejected because they contained allegedly conflicting data concerning the surplus items offered.

View Decision

B-238055.2, Jul 30, 1990, 90-2 CPD 79

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where on reconsideration protester contends that it was not read draft rejection letter as stated in the decision but does not deny that at the same time it was orally informed of the agency's rejection of its offer.

Attorneys

Swafford Industries-- Reconsideration:

Swafford Industries requests reconsideration of our decision, Swafford Indus., B-238055, Mar. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 268, dismissing as untimely its protest of the rejection of the offers it submitted in response to four different requests for quotations issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for radio frequency cable assemblies. We dismissed the protest because we concluded that Swafford filed its protest more than 10 days after it was informed orally that its offers had been rejected.

The protester argues that contrary to what is stated in our decision it was not read a draft of the contracting officer's letter rejecting its offer in early November. While not denying that it was in fact informed orally at that time that its offers had been rejected because they contained allegedly conflicting data concerning the surplus items offered, the protester contends that it orally complained about the proposal rejection and did not file a written protest until it was informed on December 4 that another firm had received the award.

The fact remains that Swafford was informed orally in early November that its offers would be rejected because in the agency's view they contained contradictory data. A protester's receipt of oral information is sufficient to start the 10-day time period for filing a protest running, Bottom Line Servs., Inc., B-235800, Aug. 8, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 115, and Swafford's attempts to orally persuade the agency to change its position before filing its protest did not toll the timeliness requirement. Tandy Contr. Inc., B-238619, Feb. 22, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 206. We therefore affirm our conclusion that Swafford's December 15 protest to our Office was untimely. /1/

/1/ Notwithstanding the fact that we dismissed the protest as untimely our original decision also concluded that the agency's rejection of Swafford's offers was proper. The protester also requests reconsideration of that portion of our decision essentially setting forth the same arguments it made earlier. Repetition of arguments made during the original protest does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Brown Assocs. Management Servs. Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-235906.3, Mar. 16, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 299.

GAO Contacts