B-179193, NOV 11, 1974
Highlights
PRIOR DECISION DENYING PROTEST IS AFFIRMED UNDER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SINCE REQUEST IS BASED UPON RESTATEMENT OF PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS FULLY CONSIDERED IN INITIAL DECISION. OF SHOWING THAT DECISION IS BASED UPON ERROR IN LAW OR FACT. WHICH DENIED ITS PROTEST UNDER REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS DAJB03-73-R-5001 AND 5002 WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY KOREAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY ON MARCH 15. THAT OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS THAT HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY REPRESENTED. AT THAT TIME FEMCO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL ITS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE AT THE TIME OF OUR INITIAL DECISION. WE HAVE THOROUGHLY REEXAMINED THESE ALLEGATIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THEM WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE MODIFICATION OF OUR EARLIER DECISION.
B-179193, NOV 11, 1974
PRIOR DECISION DENYING PROTEST IS AFFIRMED UNDER REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SINCE REQUEST IS BASED UPON RESTATEMENT OF PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS FULLY CONSIDERED IN INITIAL DECISION, AND NEW CONTENTIONS RELATE TO CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, INSTEAD OF SHOWING THAT DECISION IS BASED UPON ERROR IN LAW OR FACT.
FISCHER ENGINEERING & MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC.:
FISCHER ENGINEERING & MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC. (FEMCO), REQUESTED THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION, MATTER OF FISCHER ENGINEERING & MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC., ET AL., B-179193, APRIL 1, 1974, WHICH DENIED ITS PROTEST UNDER REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS DAJB03-73-R-5001 AND 5002 WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY KOREAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY ON MARCH 15, 1973, FOR FACILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS IN KOREA.
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION SUGGESTS, IN PART, THAT OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON CERTAIN FACTS THAT HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY REPRESENTED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, FEMCO INCLUDED A RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE LETTER DATED JULY 6, 1973, WHICH FEMCO FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS INITIAL PROTEST WITH OUR OFFICE. AT THAT TIME FEMCO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL ITS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE AT THE TIME OF OUR INITIAL DECISION. WE HAVE THOROUGHLY REEXAMINED THESE ALLEGATIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THEM WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE MODIFICATION OF OUR EARLIER DECISION.
CERTAIN NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH APPARENTLY CAME TO FEMCO'S ATTENTION DURING CONTRACT PERFORMANCE WHICH WE FIND RAISES MATTERS DEALING WITH CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. THE MERITS OF A PROTEST AGAINST THE PROPRIETY OF A CONTRACT AWARD MUST BE DETERMINED UPON THE INFORMATION EXISTING AT THE TIME OF AWARD AND NOT UPON SUBSEQUENT ALLEGATIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO CONTRACT PERFORMANCE.
WHILE WE WILL RECONSIDER OUR DECISIONS IF A MATERIAL MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW IS ALLEGED AND PROVEN, THERE IS NO SHOWING IN FEMCO'S LETTER REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION INVOLVED ANY MISTAKE OF RELEVANT FACT, NOR ARE LEGAL AUTHORITIES OR PRECEDENT CITED TO SUPPORT ANY ERROR OF LAW THEREIN.
ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION OF APRIL 1 IS AFFIRMED.