EMIPA protest response draft discussion, May 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

May 22,2002

Lawrence R. Mulligan Attomey-at-Law Cornerstone Professional Park 39 Sherman Hill Road P.O. Box 1187 Woodbury, Cormecticut 06798

Re: Contract 1081-AQM North River Air Quality Monitoring System Second Appeal of Protest Denial

Dear Mr. Mulligan; I am in receipt of your letter of May 17,2002 submitted on behalf of your client, EMIPA, Inc., which you purport to be a “final protest” relating to the above­ referenced Contract. On December 12,2001, you submitted a letter of protest to the Office of Contract Administration of the New York City Comptroller. At such time, you were advised that such protests are to be submitted to the Agency Head, with copies to the Comptroller and Agency ACCO, and must be submitted “within ten days after the protesting supplier knows or should have known of the facts that prompted the protest but no later tihan ten days after publication of the notice of award.” Procurement Policy Board Rules §2-10(a)(l). Two months later, on February 4, 2002, you submitted a letter protest to me as the authorized delegate of the Agency Head. Notwithstanding the fact that I could have dismissed the February 4,2002 protest as it was objectively untimely, I chose to respond to your protest on the merits. Your argument that your client’s protest was “continuing” and your unilateral attempt to extend the time for appeal based on awaiting receipt of documents requested via the Freedom of Information Law are baseless.

Please be advised that there is no further aSnr inistrative appeal available. Pursuant to Procurement Policy Board Rules §2-10(a)(3), “[t]he Agency Head’s determination shall be final.” As such, my determination of March 1,2002 denying your client’s protest stands.

Very truly yours,

Diana Chapin First Deputy Conunissioner

c: Avaltroni, Erdfarb, Fenves, Gilsenan, Kelpin, Nudelman, Resnick, Schiano, Smyth

NYC-WTC_000161128