B-239490.5, Apr 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD 386

B-239490.5, Apr 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD 386

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: 1. Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of fact or legal grounds warranting reversal but merely restates arguments made by the protester and previously considered by the General Accounting Office. PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Offers - Competitive ranges Exclusion - Administrative discretion 2. Proposal that agency properly finds technically unacceptable may be excluded from the competitive range without consideration of price.

Attorneys

Interceptor Group Ltd., Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Interceptor Group Ltd., Inc. (IGL) requests that we reconsider our decision, Interceptor Group Ltd., Inc., B-239490.3, Dec. 4, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 451. In that decision, we found reasonable the Department of the agency's exclusion of Interceptor's proposal from the competitive range that this decision was not the result of a biased evaluation by the agency, but was in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. also concluded that any challenge to the lack of specificity in the statement work, filed after award, was untimely, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1) of our Bid Protest Regulations.

Finally, with regard to the timeliness of IGL's concern regarding the specifications, we find no error in our decision. For example, IGL was downgraded because its proposal to develop concepts for test lacked detail. IGL essentially protested back the requirement. IGL claimed that its inadequate response was the result of a lack of descriptive technical information in the RFP. However, IGL clearly was aware of the lack of detail in the RFP prior to the initial closing date, and was required to protest this defect at that time. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a) (1990).

IGL also disagrees with our conclusion that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, and that the Army's evaluation was reasonable. For example, it asserts, as it did in its initial protest, that it responses to each sample task was adequate to demonstrate its technical and management understanding and its low ratings were the result of evaluation misunderstanding or bias.

IGL disagrees with our decision that the agency's evaluation was proper and also argues that it timely protested unannounced changes in solicitation requirements which were only describe at the debriefing after award. IGL also objects to our failure to consider its allegation concerning defective cost analysis. We found under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA21-90-R-1018.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains 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) (1990). IGL's repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and mere disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.-- Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.

IGL also argues that we improperly failed to consider its allegation that the Army conducted an unreasonable cost analysis of its offer, since we held in the prior decision that IGL was properly determined to be technically unacceptable, the propriety of the cost evaluation is irrelevant. A technically unacceptable offer may be excluded from the competitive range irrespective of its lower offered price. Federal Servs., Inc., B-235661, Aug. 28, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 182.

The request for reconsideration is denied.