BNUMBER:  B-270696.2; B-270696.3
DATE:  February 13, 1996
TITLE:  Consolidated Management Services,
Inc.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Consolidated Management Services, Inc.--Reconsideration
 
File:     B-270696.2; B-270696.3

Date:     February 13, 1996

J. William Bennett, Esq., for the protester.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Prior decision dismissing protest as untimely is affirmed where 
protest as filed was untimely on its face; fact that on 
reconsideration protester asserts that it provided incorrect factual 
information to counsel, inadvertently indicating that protest was 
untimely, and that protest in fact was timely filed based on actual 
timing of events, provides no basis for reconsideration of dismissal.

2.  Protest challenging rejection of bid is untimely when filed more 
than 14 calendar days after the protester was informed orally by 
contracting officer of adverse agency action; protester may not wait 
for written confirmation of oral advice to file protest.

DECISION

Consolidated Management Services, Inc. (CMS) requests reconsideration 
of our December 15, 1995 dismissal of its protest against the 
rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DAKF61-95-B-0078, issued by the Department of the Army for meals, 
lodging, and transportation.  We dismissed the protest as untimely 
because it was filed more than 14 days after the protester knew, or 
should have known, the basis for protest.  CMS contends that its 
protest should be reinstated since it made a mistake in its original 
protest filing, inadvertently misleading us to conclude that its 
protest was untimely.  Alternatively, CMS has filed a second protest 
challenging the rejection of its bid which CMS contends is timely, as 
it was filed within 14 days of its receiving formal written 
notification from the contracting officer that its bid had been 
rejected.

We affirm our prior dismissal.

Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules requiring timely 
submission of protests.  Under these rules, protests not based on 
alleged improprieties in a solicitation--such as CMS' contention that 
the Army improperly rejected its bid--must be filed no later than 14 
calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, the 
basis for protest, whichever is earlier.  Section 21.2(a)(2), 60 Fed. 
Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.2(a)(2)). 

In this case, we dismissed CMS' protest because in its initial 
submission, the protester stated that it did not file its protest 
until "15 calendar days" after the date "CMS became aware of the 
adverse actions of the [c]ontracting [o]fficer."  In this regard, CMS 
contended that it discovered its basis for protest during a November 
22 telephone call with the contracting officer concerning an 
agency-level protest by another bidder challenging the acceptance of 
CMS' bid.  Since CMS' protest was not filed until December 7--more 
than 14 calendar days later--we dismissed the protest.

On reconsideration, CMS does not dispute that based on its original 
protest, our prior dismissal for untimeliness was proper.  Instead, 
CMS contends that its original protest should be reinstated for 
consideration on the merits since, after advising CMS of our 
dismissal, the protester's attorney learned that "the facts stated in 
the initial protest submission . . . were misunderstood and misstated 
by counsel in the protest."  CMS now asserts that contrary to its 
earlier representations, the protester did not learn any basis for 
protest during the November 22 telephone conversation with the 
contracting officer because the contracting officer refused to discuss 
how the agency would rule on the competitor's protest pending a legal 
opinion by the agency counsel.  On reconsideration, CMS, for the first 
time, contends that it learned its basis for protest in a subsequent 
telephone conversation with the contracting officer, which took place 
on December 5.  CMS further contends that its attorney misunderstood 
the actual sequence of events which transpired in this case because 
the employee who had the two telephone conversations with the 
contracting officer was on vacation when this protest was filed, and 
consequently the facts were incorrectly relayed to the protester's 
attorney by another employee.

The fact that the protester's key employee was on vacation does not 
excuse CMS' mistaken representation of this case's chronology; in 
order to satisfy our statutory mandate to resolve protests 
expeditiously and to maintain our role as a meaningful, efficient 
protest forum, we expect all parties to prepare and present their 
cases carefully and diligently.  For this reason, our Regulations 
specifically require all parties to set forth certain details in each 
protest filing, including "all information establishing the timeliness 
of the protest."  Section 21.1(c)(6), 60 Fed. Reg. supra  (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.1(c)(6)).  If, in its initial protest, a 
protester fails to establish the timeliness of its challenge, the 
protest will be dismissed, and the protester will not be permitted 
another opportunity--for example in a reconsideration request--to 
present its case.  See Eurometalli s.p.a.--Recon., B-250522.2, Apr. 
15, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  323.  Since CMS' protest on its face appeared 
untimely--albeit allegedly due to a mistaken communication between the 
protester and its counsel--it was properly dismissed.

Alternatively, CMS contends that even if we do not grant its 
reconsideration request, its second protest against the rejection of 
its bid is timely filed because it responds to a letter issued by the 
contracting officer on December 14, which confirmed the agency's basis 
for rejecting CMS' bid.  CMS argues that prior to receiving this 
formal notification, any basis the protester had for challenging the 
rejection of its bid was purely speculative because it was based on 
oral information.

It is not clear to us that the second filing should be considered a 
separate protest because it merely elaborates on matters raised in the 
first protest that was dismissed as untimely.  However, even assuming 
it should be so considered, as discussed above, protests must be filed 
within 14 calendar days from when the protester first learns its basis 
for protest; further--and as specifically recognized by the protester 
in its initial protest--a protester's receipt of oral information 
forming the basis for its protest is sufficient to start the time 
period running from which this Office calculates the timeliness of a 
protest filing under our Regulations.  Swafford Indus., B-238055, Mar. 
12, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  268.  Written notification is not required.  Id.  
While the protester contends that it was unaware of the reason for the 
rejection of its bid until receipt of the December 14 letter, the 
record now establishes that the protester was on notice of the basis 
for the agency's action by December 5 at the latest.  Specifically, 
the protester now acknowledges that it was informed of its 
competitor's agency-level protest in October; filed a rebuttal to it 
with the agency in November; and, in a conversation with the 
contracting officer on December 5, was notified that the contracting 
officer had decided to "allow the protest" by its competitor.  Thus, 
we decline to consider CMS' second protest because it is untimely.  
See Wachdienst Rheinland--Westfalen GmbH--Recon., B-241837.2, Mar. 8, 
1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  262.

The prior dismissal is affirmed.

Comptroller General
of the United States