BNUMBER:  B-265651.2
DATE:  November 16, 1995
TITLE:  Service & Supply International Limited--Reconsideration

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Service & Supply International Limited--Reconsideration

File:     B-265651.2

Date:   November 16, 1995

David P. Mills for the protester.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where a protest was dismissed due to the protester's failure to submit 
comments or express continuing interest in the protest within 10 days 
of receiving the agency report, the protester's alleged failure to 
receive notice from the General Accounting Office advising it of the 
regulatory requirement to submit comments within 10 days of receiving 
the report is not a basis for reconsidering the protest.

DECISION

Service & Supply International Limited requests reconsideration of our 
October 11, 1995, dismissal of its protest alleging improper 
evaluation of proposals under request for proposals No. 
SOZA600-95-R-1001, issued by the Department of State for the operation 
and management of guard services for the U.S. Embassy, Lusaka, Zambia.  
We dismissed Service & Supply's protest for failing to submit 
comments, or a written statement expressing continued interest in the 
protest, within 10 working days of receiving the agency report.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Service & Supply filed its protest in our Office on August 10, 1995.  
On August 14, we sent Service & Supply a standard acknowledgment 
notice informing it of the requirement under our Bid Protest 
Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  21.3(j) (1995), to submit written comments or 
advise our Office to decide the protest on the existing record within 
10 working days after receipt of the report.  The notice stated that 
the report was due on September 15, and advised that, for purposes of 
dismissing protests for failing to comment, our Office would assume 
that the protester received a copy of the report on the scheduled 
report due date unless the protester informs us otherwise at that 
time.  Our Office received the agency report on September 18, 1 
working day after the report due date.  We dismissed the protest 16 
working days later on October 11.  We received no communication from 
the protester until October 18, when the protester's representative 
telephoned our Office questioning the dismissal.

In its request for reconsideration, the protester states that it 
received the agency report on September 18.  The protester states that 
it did not comment or otherwise contact our Office before receiving 
the dismissal notice because it was not aware of the requirement to 
comment within 10 days of receipt of the agency report.  The protester 
alleges that it did not receive the protest acknowledgment notice from 
our Office; however, on August 18, it did receive a copy of the notice 
which we sent to the agency confirming that our Office would require a 
report from the agency and that the report due date was September 15.  
This notice also instructed the agency to advise all interested 
parties of the protest and their right to submit written comments on 
the protest within 10 days of receipt of the report.  Service & Supply 
alleges that, absent direct notification from our Office of the 
requirement for submitting comments, the dismissal of its protest for 
failing to submit comments is improper.  The protester requests our 
Office to reopen the protest and permit the protester to submit 
comments on the report.

The filing deadlines in our Bid Protest Regulations are prescribed 
under the authority of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984; 
their purpose is to enable us to comply with the statute's mandate 
that we resolve bid protests expeditiously.  31 U.S.C.  3554(a)(1) 
(1988); Fisons Instruments--Recon., B-254939.2, Dec. 8, 1993, 93-2 CPD  
310; Discount Mach. & Equip., Inc.--Recon., B-239104.2, Aug. 6, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  106.  It is not our policy to reopen a protest file where 
the protester has failed to respond to an agency report in a timely 
manner, since to do so would be inconsistent with that purpose.  Id.  
Our Regulations specifically provide that we will assume the protester 
received the agency report on the scheduled report due date unless 
otherwise advised by the protester, and also provide for dismissal of 
the protest if we do not hear from the protester within 10 working 
days of receiving the report.  4 C.F.R.  21.3(j).  Since our 
Regulations are published in the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations, protesters are on constructive notice of the 
comment requirement.  Fisons Instruments--Recon., supra; Discount 
Mach. Equip., Inc.--Recon., supra.

Although Service & Supply alleges that it did not receive our notice 
acknowledging its protest, it states that it did receive a copy of the 
agency report on September 18, the same day on which the agency 
submitted its report to our Office.  Thus, the protester had a full 10 
business days after receipt of the report, and prior to our dismissing 
its protest, to submit comments or request a decision on the merits.  
Nevertheless, at no time prior to receiving the notice dismissing its 
protest did the protester contact our Office.  Therefore, the protest 
was properly dismissed for failure to comment or to express continuing 
interest in the protest within the required time period.  4 C.F.R.  
21.3(j).  Even assuming the protester did not receive the 
acknowledgment notice from our Office advising it of this requirement, 
the protester's lack of knowledge of our published Regulations is not 
a basis for waiving these requirements and reconsidering the protest.  
See Fisons Instruments--Recon., supra; Discount Mach. Equip., 
Inc.--Recon., supra.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States