HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadckf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
0', 0-LER G
-. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECIION . OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. O.C. 2054B
FILE: B-182977 DATE: August 5,1975
MATTER OF: Northwest Logging, Inc. q -3o
DIGEST:
Earlier decision regarding rejection of high bid on
timber sale and effect of lapsing of high bidder's
1974 quota restriction was not erroneous in either
fact or law. Contention that quota restriction was
still in effect at time set for contract performance,
i.e., timber purchase, i.e., date of bid opening, Octo-
ber 23, 1974, is rejected since purchase did not occur
on that date as no contract came into being merely by
submission of high bid. Moreover, as set out in ear-
lier decision, fact that protester's own good faith pro-
test allowed 1974 quota restriction to lapse does not
provide basis to reject bid in 1975.
The instant case is a request for reconsideration filed by
Northwest Logging, Inc., with regard to our decision in Anderson &
Middleton Logging Company, B-182977, June 30, 1975. In essence,
our earlier decision held that where the high bidder on the Dry
County Timber Sale in the Olympic National Forest, Anderson &
Middleton Logging Company (A&M), was rejected because award to
that company would have caused it to exceed its export and sub-
stitution quotas for 1974 (36 C.F.R. § 221.25 (1974)), award
could be made to A&M in 1975 since no quota prohibition existed
in 1975 even though the reason award was not made in 1974 was
A&M's protest-against the rejection of its bid.
Northwest Logging, in accordance with section 20.9 of our
Bid Protest Procedures, 40 Fed. Reg. 17979 (1975), has requested
reconsideration of our decision on the basis that our decision
contained an error of law, specifically that a prime case relied
on in our earier decision, 51 Comp. Gen. 168 (1971), is not analo-
gous to the situation presented by the instant case.
In 51 Comp. Gen. 168, we stated at 173 that:
* * * [The protester contends] the Navy's
possible consideration of the bid of * * * [the
* original low bidder] would make a mockery of the
~-sc30'1 - T7 307](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadckf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)