BV has, however, shown that its protest should have been heard nunc pro tunc. A document filed with an administrative agency after the expiration of a jurisdictional deadline that would ordinarily bar its consideration can be accepted as filed nunc pro tunc where the filer shows that extraordinary circumstances caused the delay in filing. Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review of Allegheny County, 560 Pa. 481, 746 A.2d 581, 584 (2000); Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 Pa. 381, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (1996); H.D. v. Department of Public Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216, 1219 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000); Martin Media v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 727 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999). The fact that the Procurement Code does not specifically address and provide for such relief does not preclude allowance of a protest nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc relief is an equitable exception to strict deadlines that by their terms absolutely bar untimely filings.

However, the time for taking an appeal may be extended if the failure to timely file the appeal was caused by fraud, a breakdown in the administrative process, or the non-negligent conduct of an Petitioner or an Petitioner's counsel, all of which have been found to constitute extraordinary circumstances. C.S. v. Department of Public Welfare, 879 A.2d 1274, 1279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Martin Media v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 727 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Petitioner's argument that his appeal should be treated as though it was timely is two-fold: (1) Petitioner's counsel incorrectly recorded the deadline to appeal, immediately took action to correct his mistake when he realized the error, and submitted the appeal only four (4) days beyond the appeal date; and (2) Petitioner was never personally served with the order denying his request to expunge the indicated report, as only Petitioner's counsel was served.