B-192673, DECEMBER 8, 1978
Highlights
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED WHERE PROTESTER PRESENTS NEITHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IN PRIOR DECISION NOR SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. 2. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DENIED WHERE MATTER CAN BE PROMPTLY RESOLVED WITHOUT CONFERENCE. WE HELD THAT ROUGHTON'S BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE AS IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A VALID BID GUARANTEE. WE HELD THE BID WAS PROPERLY REJECTED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS SEC. 1-10.204-2 PROVIDING THAT WHEN A CASHIER'S CHECK IS FURNISHED AS THE BID GUARANTEE IT SHALL BE DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY. HERE THE CASHIER'S CHECK SUBMITTED WITH THE BID WAS ONLY DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF HOWARD W.
B-192673, DECEMBER 8, 1978
DIGEST: 1. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED WHERE PROTESTER PRESENTS NEITHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IN PRIOR DECISION NOR SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. 2. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DENIED WHERE MATTER CAN BE PROMPTLY RESOLVED WITHOUT CONFERENCE.
HOWARD W. ROUGHTON, III -- RECONSIDERATION:
HOWARD W. ROUGHTON III (ROUGHTON) REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION IN HOWARD W. ROUGHTON, III, B-192673, NOVEMBER 14, 1978, 78-2 CPD . . ., DENYING ROUGHTON'S PROTEST OF THE REJECTION OF HIS BID UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NTIA 5-78 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
WE HELD THAT ROUGHTON'S BID WAS NONRESPONSIVE AS IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A VALID BID GUARANTEE, I.E., A CHECK WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT BY THE PAYEE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FIRM COMMITMENT. ADDITIONALLY, WE HELD THE BID WAS PROPERLY REJECTED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS SEC. 1-10.204-2 PROVIDING THAT WHEN A CASHIER'S CHECK IS FURNISHED AS THE BID GUARANTEE IT SHALL BE DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY. HERE THE CASHIER'S CHECK SUBMITTED WITH THE BID WAS ONLY DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF HOWARD W. ROUGHTON, III AND NOT FURTHER ENDORSED TO THE ORDER OF THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY.
IN HIS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, ROUGHTON REITERATES THE ARGUMENTS ORIGINALLY PUT FORTH IN HIS PROTEST, AND DOES NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING ANY ERROR OF FACT OR LAW IN THE ORIGINAL DECISION NOR DOES HE PROVIDE ANY SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. FIND, THEREFORE, NO BASIS FOR RECONSIDERING THIS MATTER. 4 C.F.R. 20.9(2)(1978); MURPHY PACIFIC MARINE SALVAGE COMPANY- RECONSIDERATION, B-190678, MAY 19, 1978, 78-1 CPD 386.
ROUGHTON ALSO REQUESTS A CONFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS RECONSIDERATION REQUEST. HOWEVER, OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES DO NOT EXPLICITLY PROVIDE FOR CONFERENCES UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. SEE 4 C.F.R. 20.9(1978). IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PROCEDURES TO EFFECT "PROMPT RESOLUTION" OF RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AND WE BELIEVE A REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE THE MATTER CANNOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT A CONFERENCE. THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. SEE KURZ-- KASCH, INC.-- RECONSIDERATION, B-192604, OCTOBER 31, 1978, 78-2 CPD 311; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.-- RECONSIDERATION, 56 COMP.GEN. 875(1977), 77-2 CPD 97.