BNUMBER:  B-271316.2
DATE:  June 28, 1996
TITLE:  Carmon Construction, Inc.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Carmon Construction, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-271316.2

Date:June 28, 1996

Carmon Smith for the protester.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Prior decision dismissing protest for failure to submit comments or 
express continuing interest in the protest within 14 days of receiving 
the agency report is affirmed on reconsideration since the protester's 
alleged failure to receive notice from the General Accounting Office 
advising it of the regulatory requirement to submit comments within 14 
days of receiving the report is not a basis for reopening the protest.

DECISION

Carmon Construction, Inc. requests reconsideration of our April 29, 
1996, dismissal of  its protest against the award of a contract to 
Dawson Building Contractors, Inc. under solicitation No. 
GS-04P-95-EXC-0046, issued by the General Services Administration.  We 
dismissed Carmon's protest for failure to submit comments or a written 
statement expressing continued interest in the protest, within 14 days 
of receiving the agency report.

We affirm our dismissal.

Carmon filed its protest in our Office on March 1, which it 
supplemented on   March 7.  On March 6, we sent Carmon a standard 
acknowledgment notice informing the protester of the requirement under 
our Bid Protest Regulations,        4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.3(h) (1996), to 
submit written comments or advise our Office to decide the protest on 
the existing record within 14 days after receipt of the report.  The 
notice stated that the report was due on April 8, and advised that we 
would assume that the protester received a copy of the report on the 
scheduled report due date unless the protester informed us otherwise 
at that time.  Our Office received the agency report on April 5, 3 
days before the report due date and we dismissed the protest 24 days 
later on April 29.  We received no communication from the protester 
until May 2, when the protester's representative telephoned our Office 
questioning the dismissal.

In its request for reconsideration, the protester maintains that it 
did not receive the protest acknowledgment notice from our Office and 
was therefore unaware of the requirement to comment or otherwise 
contact our Office within 14 days of receipt of the agency report, 
which it received on April 8.  On this basis, Carmon requests that our 
Office reopen the protest and consider the merits of its protest.

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.  sec.  3554(a)(1) 
(1994); Fisons Instruments--Recon., B-254939.2, Dec. 8, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  
310; Discount Mach. & Equip., Inc.--Recon., B-239104.2, Aug. 6, 1990,   
90-2 CPD  para.  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.  
As reflected in our standard protest acknowledgment notice, our 
Regulations specifically provide that we will assume the protester 
received the agency report no later than the scheduled due date 
specified in the acknowledgment notice, unless we are otherwise 
advised by the protester.  If we do not hear from the protester in a 
timely manner, our Regulations provide for dismissal of the protest.

The protester not only did not communicate with us in a timely manner, 
but failed to respond to the report at all.  As previously stated, the 
protester received a copy of the agency report on April 8; we did not 
dismiss the protest until 21 days later.  The protest was thus 
properly dismissed for failure to comment or to express continuing 
interest in the protest within the required time period.  Service & 
Supply Int'l Ltd.--Recon., B-265651.2, Nov. 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  225.  
In this regard, Carmon's allegation that it did not receive the 
acknowledgment notice from our Office advising it of this comment 
requirement provides no basis for us to reopen its protest since 
protesters are, as a matter of law, on constructive notice of the 
comment requirement because our Regulations are published in the 
Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.  Id.  

We affirm our prior dismissal of Carmon's protest.

Comptroller General
of the United States