SAGAM Securite Senegal (19AqMM18R0332)

B-418583.2 Mar 22, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SAGAM Securite Senegal (SAGAM) of Dakar, Senegal, protests the cancellation of solicitation No. 19AQMM18R0332, issued by the Department of State for local guard services for the U.S. Embassy in Dakar. The protester contends that the agency erred in deciding to cancel the solicitation in response to discovering a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  SAGAM Securite Senegal File:  B-418583.2 Date:  March 22, 2021 Thomas A. Coulter, Esq., and Ryan J. Starks, Esq., Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, for the protester. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s cancellation of solicitation is untimely where notice of the basis of protest was received during protester’s normal business hours, but protest was filed more than 10 calendar days after receipt of the agency’s email notification; for purposes of our timeliness rules, the filing deadline imposed by our regulations is not tolled where the recipient’s email system generated an automatic response indicating that the recipient was on leave. DECISION   SAGAM Securite Senegal (SAGAM) of Dakar, Senegal, protests the cancellation of solicitation No. 19AQMM18R0332, issued by the Department of State for local guard services for the U.S. Embassy in Dakar.  The protester contends that the agency erred in deciding to cancel the solicitation in response to discovering a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). We dismiss the protest as untimely because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after the protester knew, or should have known, the basis for its protest. BACKGROUND The undisputed facts are as follows.  On December 2, 2020, the contracting officer emailed the director of operations (director) for SAGAM to provide notice that the agency was cancelling the solicitation.[1]  Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 1, Emails between Agency and Protester (Dec. 2, 7, 10, 2020).  Because the contracting officer did not receive acknowledgement of receipt of her email, she again emailed the director on December 7 and December 10, respectively.  Id.  Also on December 10, the agency’s assistant regional security officer (security officer) emailed the protester’s project manager (PM) to inquire as to whether the director had received the contracting officer’s email.  Resp. to Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 5, Emails between Agency and Protester (Dec. 10, 2020).  SAGAM’s PM responded to the agency’s security officer by email and contacted the director to relay the security officer’s message.  Resp. to Dismissal Req. at 4.  On the evening of December 10, the director responded to the contracting officer’s previous emails.  Resp. to Req. for Dismissal, Exh. 6, Email from Protester to Agency.[2] On December 21, SAGAM protested to our Office, alleging that because the agency found a PIA violation, it was improper to cancel the solicitation, rather than disqualifying the competing offeror that improperly obtained information from SAGAM’s proposal.  Protest at 3. DISCUSSION The agency subsequently requested dismissal, asserting that the protest is untimely because it was filed more than 10 days after December 2, the date on which the agency notified the protester of cancellation of the solicitation.  The agency contends that the protester neither alleges that it failed to receive the agency’s earlier emails, nor explains how such a failure would mitigate timeliness.  Id. In response, the protester contends that its protest is timely because it did not have actual or constructive notice of the agency’s cancellation until December 10.  Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 2.  In this regard, the protester explains that between November 23 and December 23, SAGAM’s director was on leave and could not access emails without physically going into a SAGAM office.  Id. at 3, 5.  In support of this assertion, the protester states that “[i]n accordance with standard business practices,” the director enabled an automatic email response providing notice that the director was on leave with irregular access to email and that urgent matters should be addressed to SAGAM’s PM.  Id. at 3.  Thus, the protester asserts that although the agency sent an email providing notice on December 2, the protester did not have constructive or actual knowledge of the notice of cancellation until the director accessed his email account on December 10.  Id.