[Request for Reconsideration of Protest of DCSC Solicitation]

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision in which its protest was denied. The protest concerned an allegedly restrictive specification contained in a Defense Construction Supply Center (DCSC) solicitation, and GAO held that a private agreement executed by the protester, rather than the specification, prevented it from competing in the instant procurement. The protester contended that: (1) GAO, rather than the protester, raised the issue of the private agreement, and that the private agreement was not relevant to the issue of whether the specification was unduly restrictive; (2) GAO incorrectly determined that the design for the specified product had been field tested; (3) the specification did not provide the best method of meeting the Government's needs; and (4) a DCSC analysis of the protester's product was provided by the protester's competitor. GAO held that: (1) the record clearly showed that the protester raised the issue of the private agreement; (2) the part of the design that was not tested was not relevant to the Government's needs; (3) it would not question the DCSC determination of its needs; and (4) while the analysis of the product was provided by an individual currently employed by the protester's competitor, the protester provided no evidence that the analysis was incorrect. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.