B-201395.4,L/M, JUL 27, 1982

B-201395.4,L/M: Jul 27, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

1982 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISIONS CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST THAT THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE USED BROOKS ACT PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES IN SECURING CENTRIFUGE TESTING OF MODEL PILE GROUP FOUNDATIONS. EACH WAS REACHED AFTER AFFORDING YOU FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR VIEWS. A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST SPECIFY AN ERROR OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION THAT IS QUESTIONED. YOU RAISE NO MATTERS OF WHICH WE WERE UNAWARE AT THE TIME OUR PRIOR DECISIONS WERE ISSUED. WE REMAIN OF THE OPINION THAT THOSE CASES WERE DECIDED CORRECTLY. YOUR THIRD REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.

B-201395.4,L/M, JUL 27, 1982

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS:

ATTENTION: MR. JOHN P. BACHNER

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR REQUEST OF JULY 2, 1982 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISIONS CONCERNING YOUR PROTEST THAT THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SHOULD HAVE USED BROOKS ACT PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES IN SECURING CENTRIFUGE TESTING OF MODEL PILE GROUP FOUNDATIONS.

WE DENIED YOUR PROTEST INITIALLY ON JULY 17, 1981. WE AFFIRMED THE DECISION ON MAY 6, 1982 IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. WE AGAIN AFFIRMED THE DECISION ON JUNE 23, 1982 IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SECOND RECONSIDERATION REQUEST.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED CONCERN AND DILIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE BROOKS ACT AND FEDERAL PROCUREMENT. NONETHELESS, EACH OF OUR PRIOR DECISIONS FOLLOWED IN-DEPTH CONSIDERATION AND APPLICATION OF THE BROOKS ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND EACH WAS REACHED AFTER AFFORDING YOU FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR VIEWS. AS YOU KNOW, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST SPECIFY AN ERROR OF LAW MADE OR INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION THAT IS QUESTIONED. YOU RAISE NO MATTERS OF WHICH WE WERE UNAWARE AT THE TIME OUR PRIOR DECISIONS WERE ISSUED, AND WE REMAIN OF THE OPINION THAT THOSE CASES WERE DECIDED CORRECTLY. THEREFORE, YOUR THIRD REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.