[Request for Reconsideration]

A firm requested a reconsideration of a decision in which its protests of two Air Force procurements of dormitory furniture were dismissed in part and denied in part. The protester objected to the Air Force use of a "brand-name-or-equal" specification, which it contended did not adequately describe the salient characteristics of each item. The protester also objected to the fact that an aggregate award was planned for upholstered items, case goods, and mattresses, contending that few furniture manufacturers could offer all three which, therefore, restricted competition. GAO held again that this portion of the protest was based on the same grounds as the firm's protest to the agency which was denied 1 month prior to its filing a protest with GAO rendering it untimely, since any subsequent protest to GAO must be filed within 10 working days of actual or constructive knowledge of initial adverse agency action concerning that protest. Secondly, the firm alleged that GAO erred in upholding the Air Force's rejection of its bid since the contracting officer's pre-bid-opening assurance that a bidder could offer a currently available commercial product barred his subsequent interpretation of the specifications. GAO held that no interpretation of pre-bid-opening statements could prevent the Air Force from rejecting a bid which did not conform to specifications. Finally, the firm maintained that the prior decision was deficient in that it did not contain a statement concerning the proper use of the "brand-name-or-equal" method of procurement. GAO held that there was no legal justification for such a statement. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.