Matter of: Cobarc Services, Inc.-- Reconsideration File: B-252359.3 Date: August 3, 1993 93-2 CPD 74

Matter of: Cobarc Services, Inc.-- Reconsideration File: B-252359.3 Date: August 3, 1993 93-2 CPD 74

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures GAO decisions Reconsideration Request for reconsideration of protest against award to allegedly below cost proposal is denied where protester essentially disagrees with prior decision and reiterates arguments raised initially.

Attorneys

DECISION Cobarc Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest of the award of a contract to Luzon Services, Inc. by the Department of the Army, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF57-92-R- 0007, for food services at Fort Lewis, Washington. Cobarc had protested that the agency should have considered Luzon's proposal to be outside the competitive range because of its extremely low price.

We dismissed the protest because we will not consider a protester's claim that, in essence, an offeror submitted an unreasonably low price. The submission of a below cost offer is not itself legally objectionable. See H. Angelo & Co., Inc., B-244682.2, Oct. 30, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 407. Whether a contract can be performed at the offered price is a matter of the offeror's responsibility. Virginia Mfg. Co., Inc., B-241404, Feb. 4, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 113. We will not review a contracting officer's affirmative determination of responsibility absent circumstances not alleged here. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1993).

In its request for reconsideration, Cobarc also suggests that the agency should have conducted a cost realism study to determine the establishment of a proper competitive range. Where fixed-price contracts are solicited, "cost realism" ordinarily is not considered in the evaluation since a firm, fixed-price contract provides for a definite price and this contract type places upon the contractor the risk and responsibility for all contract costs and resulting profit or loss. Fairchild Space and Defense Corp., B-243716; B-243716.2, Aug. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 190; Corporate Health Examiners, Inc., B-220399.2, June 16, 1986, 86-1 CPD Para. 552. While agencies, in their discretion, may provide for a cost realism analysis in the solicitation of firm, fixed-price proposals for such purposes as measuring an offeror's understanding of the solicitation requirements, they are not required to do so. Corporate Health Examiners, Inc., supra. Here, since the RFP referred to consideration of unrealistic prices as indicative of a lack of technical competence or of a failure to comprehend the complexity of the requirements, but did not provide for a cost realism analysis, the protester's contention that the agency was required to conduct a cost realism study is without foundation.

The protester in essence repeats arguments it made previously and expresses disagreement with our decision. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). The repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and mere disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.

The request for reconsideration is denied.