B-244445.2, Jul 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD 99
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration - Additional information DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where protester produces for first time in reconsideration request additional information upon which the timeliness of the protest relies. TCA argues that its protest is timely because. Although the bond requirement was part of the original solicitation. The protester argues that it "was preparing to file its protest on the bond issue on May 23. " but delayed in anticipation of an amendment concerning the bonding issue. /1/ Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that protests which are untimely on their face may be dismissed. It is the protester's obligation to include in its protest all the information needed to demonstrate its timeliness and protesters will not be permitted to introduce for the first time in a request for reconsideration the information upon which the timeliness of the protest relies. 56 Fed.Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.
B-244445.2, Jul 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD 99
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration - Additional information DIGEST: Dismissal of protest as untimely is affirmed where protester produces for first time in reconsideration request additional information upon which the timeliness of the protest relies.
Attorneys
TCA Reservations, Inc.-- Reconsideration:
TCA Reservations, Inc. requests reconsideration of our June 13, 1991, dismissal of its protest against the bond requirement in request for proposals (RFP) No. WASO-91-02, issued by the Department of the Interior. We dismissed the protest as untimely under our Bid Protest Regulations because TCA filed its protest against an alleged apparent solicitation impropriety after the closing date for receipt of proposals. 56 Fed.Reg. 3,759 (1991) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1)).
We affirm our dismissal.
In its request for reconsideration, TCA argues that its protest is timely because, although the bond requirement was part of the original solicitation, TCA received an amendment regarding the bonding requirement 1 day prior to the June 4 closing date, and filed its protest on June 12, within 10 days thereafter. The protester argues that it "was preparing to file its protest on the bond issue on May 23, 1991," but delayed in anticipation of an amendment concerning the bonding issue. /1/
Our Bid Protest Regulations provide that protests which are untimely on their face may be dismissed. It is the protester's obligation to include in its protest all the information needed to demonstrate its timeliness and protesters will not be permitted to introduce for the first time in a request for reconsideration the information upon which the timeliness of the protest relies. 56 Fed.Reg. supra (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(b)).
Since TCA did not initially provide the information which it now argues makes its protest timely, the dismissal is affirmed.
/1/ We note that this amendment did not delete the bond requirement, and TCA does not allege that it believed the amendment was going to do so. Thus, the newly provided information does not affect the untimeliness of the protest.