Skip to Highlights
Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Prior dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where evidence of timeliness. Available to the protester at the time the protest was filed. Is first presented to General Accounting Office in request for reconsideration. Signal's protest was dismissed as untimely because the initial filing indicated that the firm had not protested within 10 working days after it received the denial of its agency-level protest. While Signal's agency-level protest was denied by letter dated January 3. That a denial of an agency-level protest is received 1 calendar week after mailing. The protest to our Office was untimely.

View Decision

B-238507.2, Apr 25, 1990, 90-1 CPD 424

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Prior dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where evidence of timeliness, available to the protester at the time the protest was filed, is first presented to General Accounting Office in request for reconsideration.

Signal Corporation-- Request for Reconsideration:

Signal Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision, Signal Corp., B-238507, Feb. 15, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. ***, in which we dismissed its protest of the award of a contract to Versar, Inc., under request for proposals No. D900184N1, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for graphics services.

We affirm the prior dismissal.

Signal's protest was dismissed as untimely because the initial filing indicated that the firm had not protested within 10 working days after it received the denial of its agency-level protest, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1989). While Signal's agency-level protest was denied by letter dated January 3, 1990, Signal did not protest to our Office until February 6. Because we assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a denial of an agency-level protest is received 1 calendar week after mailing, the protest to our Office was untimely. See TLC Moving, Inc.-- Recon., B-234850.2, Apr. 11, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 372.

Signal asserts in its reconsideration request that it did not receive the denial of its agency-level protest until January 23, 10 working days before it protested to our Office. Signal concludes that its protest was timely filed and that we should consider it on the merits. We decline to do so.

Under our Regulations, a protester must submit a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law or information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1989). Information not previously considered means information that was not available to the protester when the initial protest was filed. See Global Crane Inst.-- Request for Recon., B-218120.2, May 28, 1985, 85-1 CPD Para. 606. Any other interpretation of the rule would permit a protester to present information in a piecemeal fashion and unnecessarily disrupt the procurement of goods and services. Id. Consistent with this view, when a protest appears untimely on its face a protester which is in the possession of facts that would establish its timeliness, but which does not initially provide these facts to our Office, runs the risk of dismissal and of our refusal to reconsider the matter when the protester subsequently presents these facts. Rudd Constr. Inc.-- Second Request for Recon., B-234936.3, July 28, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 88; Global Crane Inst.-- Request for Recon., B-218120.2, supra.

The protest originally submitted to us appeared untimely based on the date of the agency's letter denying Signal's agency-level protest, and therefore properly was dismissed. Consequently, Signal is not entitled to consideration of the merits of its protest.

Our prior decision is affirmed.

GAO Contacts