_______________________________________
        
                   DENIED IN PART:  October 15, 1992
                _______________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12056-P
 
                    VIDEO & TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
               ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Peter    Jay    Bianchetta,    Vice-President,    Video    &
   Telecommunications, Inc., appearing for Protester.
 
        David E.  Weiskopf, Marilyn  J. Holmes,  and Dinah  Stevens,
   Office  of General  Counsel, Administrative  Office  of the  U.S.
   Courts, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, DANIELS, and PARKER.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                               Background
 
        Protester, Video  & Telecommunications,  Incorporated seeks,
   an immediate grant  in part of this protest  for alleged untimely
   notification   of   a   contract  modification   by   respondent,
   Administrative Office of the  United States Courts.   The alleged
   untimely  notification, it is urged, rendered protester unable to
   request  suspension  of  respondent's delegation  of  procurement
   authority, as the  protest was filed more than  ten calendar days
   after the issuance of the modification.  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(3)(A)
   (1988).  
 
        The pertinent facts are not in dispute.  On August 11, 1992,
   respondent awarded a contract to  the AVIV Corporation for supply
   of Micropolis Model 1924  SCSI-2 hard disk drives.   Respondent's
   Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 1; Affidavit dated October 8, 1992, of
   Howard   Grandier,  Chief   of   Automation  Resources   Division
   Administrative  Office of  the  United  States  Courts  (Grandier
   Affidavit)   5  (Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit  3).  On
   September  15, respondent modified the contract to substitute for
   these  drives Seagate Model ST42400N SCSI-2 drives.  Respondent's
   Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 1. 
 
        On  September 10, protester  filed a Freedom  of Information
   Act  (FOIA)  request  seeking  any  information  as  to  contract
   modifications  on   the  awarded   contract.     Amended  Protest
   Complaint,  BACKGROUND.  On September 22, the contracting officer
   sent protester a copy of  the modification, which was received by
   protester  on September  23.   Amended  Protest Complaint,  First
   Exhibit; Amended Protest Complaint, BACKGROUND.  This protest was
   filed on September 28.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Respondent opposes protester's motion for immediate  relief.
   It argues that there is no requirement timely to notify protester
   of  issuance of  a contract  modification.   It also  argues that
   protester  did not  take  advantage of  the  notification it  did
   receive and file a protest at this Board within ten calendar days
   of the contract modification.  
 
        In  the   past,  we   have  granted   relief  for   untimely
   notification where respondent  sends an untimely notice  of award
   and protester is  unable to file its protest  within ten calendar
   days after award.  Under those circumstances the Board will grant
   the protest  in part,  based on the  agency's failure  to provide
   timely  notice and  will suspend  the  delegation of  procurement
   authority,  pending ruling  on  other  grounds  of  the  protest.
   Berkshire  Computer Products  v. Department  of  the Navy,  GSBCA
   11989-P (Sept.  17, 1992); RMTC  Systems, Inc., GSBCA  11307-P,  
   91-3  BCA   24,141,  at 120,797, 1991  BPD   149,  at 2; American
   Service Corp., GSBCA 8224-P, 85-3 BCA    18,517, 1985 BPD    115.
   Our rulings in  this regard are based on a finding of a statutory
   and  regulatory  violation  of  the  requirement  that  executive
   agencies  promptly notify  vendors  of  the  rejection  of  their
   proposals.   41 U.S.C.    254(b)(d)(4) (1988),  48 CFR  15.001(a)
   (1991).  
 
        We have,  however, refused  to grant  relief  when a  party,
   having  received  notification,  had the  opportunity  to  file a
   protest within ten calendar days of the award, but did not do so.
   Computer  Sales International , Inc., v.  Department of the Army,
   GSBCA  11957-P et  al., slip  op. at  2 (Aug. 13,  1992); Federal
   Support Group,  Inc. v.  Department of  the Army, GSBCA  11803-P,
   1992 BPD   119 (May 4, 1992).  This is the case here.  
 
        Video & Telecommunications  filed its protest at  this Board
   on  September  28,  five  calendar  days  after  its  receipt  of
   respondent's notification  and thirteen calendar  days after  the
   issuance  of  the  modification.   Having  been  informed of  the
   modification on September  23,   protester could  have filed  its
   protest on September 25, two  calendar days after it received the
   notification and within ten calendar  days of the issuance of the
   modification.    The  underlying  ground  of   protest--that  the
   modification allowed substitution of a  disk drive which did  not
   conform to salient characteristics--was immediately ascertainable
   upon  receipt  of the  notification.    We  thus will  not  grant
   protester relief on the ground of untimely notification.
 
 
        In view of  our disposition, we need not  decide whether the
   statutory and  regulatory requirement of  prompt notification  of
   rejection of proposals applies to contract modifications.
 
                                Decision
 
        The protest is DENIED  on the issue of prompt  notification.
   The other grounds of protest will be decided in due course. 
 
 
   _________________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
   Board Judge
 
 
   _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER
   Board Judge