B-242769.2, Aug 5, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***
Highlights
Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds warranting reversal but merely restates arguments made by the protester and previously considered by the General Accounting Office. Each procurement is a separate transaction and the action taken on any one procurement does not govern the conduct of all similar procurements. General's bid bond was defective because it referenced an incorrect solicitation number and failed to contain objective evidence to clearly establish. That the bond was intended to cover the bid for which it was actually submitted. General disagrees with our decision that the bid bond was defective and that the contracting officer was required to reject its bid as nonresponsive.
B-242769.2, Aug 5, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: 1. Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds warranting reversal but merely restates arguments made by the protester and previously considered by the General Accounting Office. PROCUREMENT - Sealed Bidding - Contract awards - Prior contracts - Errors - Effects 2. Each procurement is a separate transaction and the action taken on any one procurement does not govern the conduct of all similar procurements. Prior acceptance of bids with allegedly similar discrepancies in bid bonds does not require continued acceptance under other solicitations.
Attorneys
U.S. General, Inc.-- Reconsideration:
U.S. General, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in U.S. General, Inc., B-242769, May 10, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 456, in which we denied its protest against the rejection of its bid as nonresponsive by the Department of Navy under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62471-89-B 2370. In that decision, we found that U.S. General's bid bond was defective because it referenced an incorrect solicitation number and failed to contain objective evidence to clearly establish, at the time of bid opening, that the bond was intended to cover the bid for which it was actually submitted. U.S. General disagrees with our decision that the bid bond was defective and that the contracting officer was required to reject its bid as nonresponsive. U.S. General also argues that other bid bonds with similar defects have been accepted under other similar Navy procurements.
In its reconsideration request, the protester 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) (1991). 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.
U.S. General's references to the Navy's acceptance of bid bonds with similar discrepancies under previous procurements at the installation are not persuasive evidence that would contradict our decision since each procurement is a separate transaction, and action taken on any one procurement does not govern the conduct of all similar procurements. Rack Eng'g, Co., B-208554, Mar. 7, 1983, 83-1 CPD Para. 224.
The request for reconsideration is denied.