B-173264, JUN 26, 1972

B-173264, JUN 26, 1972

BID PROTEST - RECONSIDERATION DENIED - PROTEST PROCEDURES DECISION DENYING REQUEST BY DIGILOG, INC; FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF DECISIONS, B-173264, FEBRUARY 23, 1972, AND DECEMBER 22, 1971, WHICH SUSTAINED AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE DIGILOG PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO RFQ F19628-71-Q-0265, ISSUED BY THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MASS; WAS OUTSIDE THE COMPETITIVE RANGE. SINCE PROTESTANT HAS PRESENTED NO FACTUAL INFORMATION OR SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE EARLIER DECISIONS MUST BE SUSTAINED. ALSO, SINCE THE AIR FORCE HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING A MEETING WITH DIGILOG AT GAO, THE REQUEST FOR SUCH MEETING MUST BE DENIED.

TO DIGILOG, INCORPORATED:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1972, REFERENCES OUR DECISION, B-173264, FEBRUARY 23, 1972, AFFIRMING OUR DECISION, B-173264, DECEMBER 22, 1971, WHICH SUSTAINED THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT YOUR PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS NO. F19628-71-Q-0265, ISSUED BY THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS, WAS OUTSIDE THE COMPETITIVE RANGE.

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 1, 1972, CONTAINS NO FACTUAL INFORMATION OR SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE UPON WHICH WE BASED OUR DECISIONS OF DECEMBER 22, 1971 AND FEBRUARY 23, 1972. UPON RECONSIDERATION WE FIND NO BASIS TO CHANGE OUR POSITION.

AS WE INDICATED IN OUR LETTER OF MAY 15, 1972, YOUR REQUEST FOR A MEETING WITH OUR OFFICE AND AIR FORCE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL WAS FORWARDED TO THE AIR FORCE. THE AIR FORCE INDICATED THEIR LACK OF INTEREST IN SUCH A PROPOSED MEETING. OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR FORMAL HEARINGS IN WHICH TESTIMONY CAN BE RECEIVED, ALTHOUGH WE DO PROVIDE FOR CONFERENCES WITH ANY INTERESTED PARTY. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE AIR FORCE RESPONSE AND OUR LACK OF SUBPEONA POWER, A THREE-WAY CONFERENCE COULD NOT BE ARRANGED IN THE INSTANT CASE.