B-214489.2, JUL 30, 1984, 84-2 CPD 123
Highlights
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - ALLEGATIONS - UNSUBSTANTIATED DIGEST: GAO WILL NOT CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF A PROTESTER'S SPECULATIVE STATEMENTS. WILL INSTEAD RELY UPON THE FACTUAL RECORD DEVELOPED BY THE PARTIES. WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE EVALUATION UNREASONABLE. OUR OFFICE WILL NOT. IT IS THE PROTESTER THAT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS OWN CASE. WE WILL NOT RECONSIDER THE MATTER. 4 C.F.R. THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.
B-214489.2, JUL 30, 1984, 84-2 CPD 123
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - ALLEGATIONS - UNSUBSTANTIATED DIGEST: GAO WILL NOT CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF A PROTESTER'S SPECULATIVE STATEMENTS, BUT WILL INSTEAD RELY UPON THE FACTUAL RECORD DEVELOPED BY THE PARTIES.
BASIC TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED - RECONSIDERATION:
BASIC TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED (BTI) REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION BASIC TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, B-214489, JULY 13, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. , IN WHICH WE DENIED THE FIRM'S PROTEST AGAINST THE EVALUATION AND REJECTION OF ITS OFFER TO FURNISH CONSULTING SERVICES UNDER SOLICITATION NO. 1184 ISSUED BY THE ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY (ANL) UNDER ANL'S PRIME CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. BTI CONTENDS THAT IF WE HAD INVESTIGATED THE MATTER INDEPENDENTLY, INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE PARTIES' PROTEST SUBMISSIONS, WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE EVALUATION UNREASONABLE.
WE DENY BTI'S REQUEST.
AS WE ADVISED BTI IN OUR JULY 13 DECISION, WHERE THE CONTRACTING AGENCY REFUTES A PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION, OUR OFFICE WILL NOT, AS A GENERAL RULE, CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE PROTESTER'S POSITION. SEE THE TRADE GROUP, B-212544, OCT. 24, 1983, 83-2 CPD PARA. 484. RATHER, IT IS THE PROTESTER THAT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS OWN CASE. VIGILANTES, INC., B-213010, FEB. 8, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 158.
IN REVIEWING BTI'S PROTEST, WE FULLY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED THE FIRM'S INITIAL PROTEST SUBMISSIONS, RESPONSES FROM ANL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND BTI'S REBUTTAL TO THESE RESPONSES. BASED ON THAT REVIEW, WE HAD NO REASON TO OBJECT TO ANL'S EVALUATION OF THE PROTESTER'S OFFER. SINCE BTI, IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, DOES NOT SPECIFY ANY ERRORS OF LAW OR FACT IN OUR DECISION, WE WILL NOT RECONSIDER THE MATTER. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9(A) (1984).
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.