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/gaobadldq0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION - . OP THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548
FILE: B-210649.2 DATE: June 21, 1983
MATTER OF: Maxson Corporation--
Reconsideration
DIGEST:
Prior decision dismissed claim for bid preparation
costs because protest of matters upon which claim
was based was not timely filed with agency. Pro-
tester now asserts new facts which, if accepted as
true, would make agency protest timely. However,
claim is dismissed and prior decision is affirmed
because protest was not filed with GAO within 10
working days of agency denial of protest.
Maxson Corporation (Maxson) requests reconsideration of
our decision in Maxson Corporation, B-210649, March 7, 1983,
83-1 CPD 227, which dismissed Maxson's claim for proposal
preparation costs in connection with its participation in a
procurement under request for proposals No. DAAK70-82-Q-
1216, issued by the Army Mobility Equipment Research and
Development Command (Army), Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
In that decision, we found that Maxson's claim was not
based on matters timely protested--a prerequisite for our
consideration of such claims. We stated that Maxson had
known the basis for a protest and claim on August 31, 1982,
yet did not file its claim with the Army until October 20,
1982. We then stated that [e]ven if Maxson's claim of
October 20, 1982, is considered a protest to the Army, which
it does not appear to be, it was untimely filed.
Maxson's claim is based on the Army's allegedly
improper failure to negotiate with it. In finding that
Maxson knew this on August 31, 1982, we relied on statements
made in a letter of December 1, 1982, from Maxson to the
Army concerning its claim. In that letter, Maxson stated
that it had been audited by the Army on August 27, 1982, and
told that if the audit was satisfactory, it would be
selected for a finalnegotiating session. Maxson stated](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadldq0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)