B-189168, MAR 6, 1978

B-189168, MAR 6, 1978

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IS DENIED WHERE PROTESTER FAILS TO SPECIFY ANY ERROR OF LAW OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED.

REACTION INSTRUMENTS, INC.:

REACTION INSTRUMENTS, INC. (REACTION), SEEKS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DENIAL OF ITS REQUEST FOR REFORMATION OF ITS CONTRACT, NO. DOT-FA75WA 3645, WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA). SEE REACTION INSTRUMENTS, INC., B-189168, NOVEMBER 30, 1977, 77-2 CPD 424.

REACTION STATES (1) THAT OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER POINTED OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IN REACTION'S BID IS UNSUPPORTED IN THE RECORD; AND (2) THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ITS OWN ESTIMATE OF PERFORMANCE COST. REACTION SUPPORTS THIS LATTER ARGUMENT BY POINTING TO THE LARGE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE AND REACTION'S BID FOR ITEMS 1 AND 3 OF THE SOLICITATION, AND IT CLAIMS THAT OUR STATEMENT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ESTIMATE AND REACTION'S BID FOR THE ENTIRE CONTRACT IS SOMEHOW INCORRECT.

REACTION SEEKS TO PROVE THIS POINT BY ISOLATING TWO ELEMENTS OF THE SOLICITATION AND SHOWING THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE WITH RESPECT TO THESE ITEMS WAS 174 PERCENT HIGHER THAN REACTION'S BID. HOWEVER, OUR COMPARISON WAS BETWEEN THE ESTIMATE AND REACTION'S BID FOR THE ENTIRE CONTRACT. WE STATED THAT THE ESTIMATE WAS 21 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE BID. THIS WAS A CORRECT COMPUTATION, AS IS REACTION'S. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT REACTION'S COMPARISON, ALTHOUGH ACCURATE, REPRESENTS INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN OUR EARLIER DECISION. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT AS A WHOLE, THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE ESTIMATE AND REACTION'S BID WAS NOT SUCH AS TO CAUSE US TO FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS "OBVIOUSLY GETTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING," ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT REACTION WAS ON NOTICE OF THE DISPARITY AND AFFIRMED ITS BID THEREAFTER, THAT THE FAA ENGINEERING STUDY FOUND REACTION'S BID REASONABLE, AND THAT REACTION OPERATED UNDER THE CONTRACT FOR 2 YEARS PRIOR TO REQUESTING REFORMATION.

ALL OF THE MATTERS RAISED BY REACTION IN ITS RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WERE FULLY AIRED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR ORIGINAL DECISION. THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PROPERLY DISCHARGED HIS VERIFICATION DUTY BY BRINGING TO REACTION'S ATTENTION THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IN ITS BID, FIRST ORALLY AT THE BID OPENING, ATTENDED BY REACTION'S VICE PRESIDENT, AND LATER IN A WRITTEN FOLLOWUP BY BRINGING TO REACTION'S ATTENTION THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ITS BID AND THAT OF THE ONLY OTHER BIDDER. OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT SINCE REACTION'S ALLEGED ERRORS WERE NOT APPARENT OR CAPABLE OF BEING DISCOVERED FROM THE BID, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD NO BASIS FOR SUSPECTING THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE POSSIBLE ERRORS.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 20.9 OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.9 (1977), SINCE REACTION FAILS TO SPECIFY ANY ERROR OF LAW OR INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST BE DENIED.