MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED: February 10, 1993 GSBCA 12082-P TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT & ANALYSIS CORPORATION, Protester, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, and ORACLE COMPLEX SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Intervenor. William W. Goodrich, Jr., and Thomas W.A. Barham of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Vienna, VA, and Jacob B. Pompan and Daniel A. Perkowski of Pompan, Ruffner & Bass, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Protester. Avital G. Zemel, Office of the General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, and L. Carol Roberson, Office of General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, counsel for Respondent. Richard O. Duvall, Richard L. Moorhouse, and Michael H. Ditton of Dunnells, Duvall & Porter, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. NEILL, Board Judge. ORDER On October 28, 1992, respondent filed with the Board a motion to compel discovery from protester and for discovery sanctions. In its motion, respondent argued that protester had failed to comply with provisions of an order authorizing discovery, issued earlier by the Board. Under that order, the parties were expected to provide fully responsive replies to all discovery requests. To this end, the parties were obliged to raise with each other within two working days of receipt of discovery requests, any and all objections they might have to the requests. In the event these objections could not be resolved, the parties were directed to advise the Board promptly so that the matter could be resolved prior to the due date for responses. Respondent contends that the answers provided by protester to eight of the interrogatories propounded were absolutely unresponsive. In attempting to answer these interrogatories, protester observed that it would supplement these answers after reviewing the OCSC proposals and respondent's evaluation of these proposals. The motion to compel was filed five days after protester provided its answer to respondent's discovery requests and five days after protester's receipt of the protest file. On Tuesday, November 3, the Board convened a status conference in this case. During that conference respondent's motion to compel and for sanctions was discussed. Counsel for respondent advised the Board that the supplemental answers promised by counsel for protester had, in fact, been provided on Monday, November 2. Since the answers appeared satisfactory, the motion to compel was withdrawn. Counsel for respondent requested, however, that the Board retain and rule on the request for sanctions. Counsel pointed out that the lateness of protester's reply made it particularly difficult to prepare for the depositions of Government employees previously scheduled to commence on the date the supplemental material was actually received. The Board thereupon authorized protester to respond to the motion for sanctions. Protester did so on November 6, the date established by the Board for filing any opposition. The requests for sanctions is denied. We do not view a promise to supplement a reply based on subsequently or recently acquired data to be the same as an objection to the discovery request in question. As protester points out, answers to initial discovery requests were due on Friday, October 23. On this same date, respondent was expected to deliver to counsel for protester the protest file which contained the documentation protester needed to review before it could supplement its answers to respondent's discovery. Given the size of the protest file (over 5000 pages) and the unusually high level of activity surrounding the litigation of this protest, we consider the time taken by protester to supplement its responses was reasonable under the circumstances. As to the complaint by counsel for respondent that the late submission of the supplemental responses made preparation for depositions very difficult, this is undoubtedly true. This does not, however, appear to have prejudiced respondent in any significant manner. Counsel for respondent could have asked for a change in the deposition scheduling. She did not. When asked by the Board why a change was not requested, counsel simply replied that she had no desire to delay proceedings further. See Board's Conference Memorandum of November 4, 1992. Given this reply, we can not find a degree of prejudice which would justify respondent's requests for sanctions -- even if we were of the opinion that the supplemental responses were unduly delayed. Accordingly, respondent's motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED. ______________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge