B-213327.2, FEB 13, 1984
Highlights
DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH CONTAINS INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IS DENIED. THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. WAS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE THE IFB COVERSHEET INDICATED THAT A DIFFERENTIAL WOULD BE ADDED TO THE BID OF ANY BIDDER WHO DID NOT INDICATE THAT IT WOULD PERFORM IN A LABOR SURPLUS AREA (LSA) AND PROVISION L29AE)(III) PROVIDED THAT NO DIFFERENTIAL WOULD APPLY FOR AN ITEM CONTAINED ON A QPL. WE DENIED THE PROTEST BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT WHILE THE SOLICITATION WAS CONFUSING. IT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. FLEXFAB NOW CLAIMS THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THE IFB COVERSHEET CHECKED THE BOX WHICH INDICATED THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS A TOTAL LSA AND WROTE BY HAND THE QPL NUMBER.
B-213327.2, FEB 13, 1984
DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH CONTAINS INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IS DENIED.
FLEXFAB, INC. - RECONSIDERATION:
FLEXFAB, INC. (FLEXFAB), REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN FLEXFAB, INC., B-213327, DECEMBER 16, 1983, 83-2 CPD 701.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.
FLEXFAB HAD PROTESTED THAT DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. DLA700-83-B-1304, ISSUED FOR AIR DUCT HOSES, AN ITEM ON A QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST (QPL), WAS AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE THE IFB COVERSHEET INDICATED THAT A DIFFERENTIAL WOULD BE ADDED TO THE BID OF ANY BIDDER WHO DID NOT INDICATE THAT IT WOULD PERFORM IN A LABOR SURPLUS AREA (LSA) AND PROVISION L29AE)(III) PROVIDED THAT NO DIFFERENTIAL WOULD APPLY FOR AN ITEM CONTAINED ON A QPL.
WE DENIED THE PROTEST BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT WHILE THE SOLICITATION WAS CONFUSING, IT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS. WE NOTED THAT A SOLICITATION MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE AND, IF POSSIBLE, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO EACH CLAUSE OF THE SOLICITATION. WE APPLIED THIS RULE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE COVERSHEET STATED THE GENERAL RULE FOR LSA PROCUREMENTS AND PROVISION L29AE)(III) STATED THE EXCEPTION WHICH APPLIED WHEN THE SOLICITATION REQUESTED AN ITEM ON A QPL.
FLEXFAB NOW CLAIMS THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THE IFB COVERSHEET CHECKED THE BOX WHICH INDICATED THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS A TOTAL LSA AND WROTE BY HAND THE QPL NUMBER. FLEXFAB CONTENDS THAT THIS INDICATES THAT THE PERSON PREPARING THE IFB KNEW THAT THE ITEM WAS ON A QPL, YET STILL THOUGHT THAT BIDS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE LSA DIFFERENTIAL. FLEXFAB CONCLUDES THAT THIS FACTOR DEMONSTRATES THAT THE IFB WAS AMBIGUOUS.
OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SPECIFY ANY ERROR OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN THE PREVIOUS PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(A) (1983); MARTIN MACHINERY COMPANY - RECONSIDERATION, B-211677.2, JULY 13, 1983, 83-2 CPD 88. OUR DECISION IN FLEXFAB DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE PERSON PREPARING THE IFB KNEW THE ITEM WAS ON A QPL YET INDICATED THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS AN LSA CONCERN. HOWEVER, WE CONSIDERED THAT FACTOR WHEN WE FOUND THAT THE IFB WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT CONTAINED BOTH THE GENERAL RULE GOVERNING LSA CONCERNS AND THE EXCEPTION GOVERNING PROCUREMENTS FOR QPL ITEMS. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT FLEXFAB HAS NOT ALLEGED ANY FACTORS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL PROTEST.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.