Protect the Force, Inc.

B-411897.3 Sep 30, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protect the Force, Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia (hereinafter, PTF), asks that we reconsider our decision of September 4, 2015, which dismissed as untimely its protest of alleged improprieties in the ground rules for solicitation No. W91CRB-15-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Army for the manufacture and delivery of ballistic combat shirts with torso extremity protection. PTF's earlier protest complained that the agency changed the method for determining the maximum amount that could be ordered under the contract after the offerors had submitted final proposal revisions (FPRs). We dismissed the underlying protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the alleged solicitation impropriety arose. PTF argues that our dismissal as untimely of its prior protest should be reconsidered, and the protest should be reinstated. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Protect the Force, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-411897.3 Date:  September 30, 2015 David S. Black, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requester has shown no error in our determination that a protest based on a change in requirements to be incorporated in resulting contracts, issued after the submission of final proposal revisions, is untimely when not filed within 10 days of the issuance of the change. DECISION Protect the Force, Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia (hereinafter, PTF), asks that we reconsider our decision of September 4, 2015, which dismissed as untimely its protest of alleged improprieties in the ground rules for solicitation No. W91CRB-15-R-0027, issued by the Department of the Army for the manufacture and delivery of ballistic combat shirts with torso extremity protection.  PTF’s earlier protest complained that the agency changed the method for determining the maximum amount that could be ordered under the contract after the offerors had submitted final proposal revisions (FPRs).  We dismissed the underlying protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after the alleged solicitation impropriety arose.  PTF argues that our dismissal as untimely of its prior protest should be reconsidered, and the protest should be reinstated. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On July 27, 2015, after FPRs had been submitted, the agency notified offerors by e‑mail that it had decided to replace the maximum quantity of shirts to be procured under solicitation contract line item number 0004 (CLIN 4) with a maximum dollar amount.  In its notice, the agency stated that it intended to make the revisions in the resulting contracts.  The notice also requested that offerors confirm within 5 hours whether their previous prices were still valid.  The protester acknowledged the change and confirmed its pricing for CLIN 4 as requested.  On July 29, two days after the agency notified offerors about its change in measuring the contract maximum for these ballistic combat shirts, the agency notified the protester that its proposal had not been selected.  PTF requested a debriefing, which the agency provided on August 5, 2015.  Id. at 6.  PTF filed its protest on August 10, 2015.  The agency sought dismissal as untimely of the protester’s challenge to the changed solicitation terms on the basis that the challenge was filed more than 10 days after PTF had learned of the alleged solicitation impropriety.  In response, PTF argued that its protest was timely because it was filed within 5 days after the debriefing.  The agency cited 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) in support of its request, and the requester cited 4 C.F.R.