B-228445.2, B-228582.2, Mar 17, 1988, 88-1 CPD ***

B-228445.2, B-228582.2, Mar 17, 1988, 88-1 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO Procedures - GAO Decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where the protester essentially restates arguments previously considered in original decision because a request for reconsideration must detail the factual and legal grounds warranting reversal of decision, specifying errors of law made or information not

Armament Engineering Co.-- Request for Reconsideration:

Armament Engineering Co. (AEC) requests reconsideration of our decision Armament Engineering Co., B-228445, B-228582, Feb. 8, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. ***, denying in part and dismissing in part AEC's protest of the award of a contract to Ferrulmatic, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA21-87-R-0092 issued by the Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, for an indefinite quantity of engineering services for the Nuclear Munitions Program. AEC also requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest of a contract award to Electronics Corporation under RFP No. DAAA21-87-R-0185, issued by the same agency, for engineering services for the reliability, availability, maintainability and quality of armament systems, components and equipment.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

In its initial protest, AEC argued that award to Ferrulmatic was improper because it would create an impermissible organizational conflict of interest since under the contract Ferrulmatic allegedly would design training projectiles which it would produce in the future for the Army. AEC also questioned Ferrulmatic's ability to perform at its proposed labor rates and the technical evaluation of its proposal. Finally, AEC complained that the RFP called for production of prototypes and, as such, did not involve a service contract effort as characterized in the solicitation, but, rather, was a production contract. We found no merit to AEC's contentions.

In our decision, we found no organizational conflict of interest existed because Ferrulmatic was to produce a prototype which the Army would then use for its own in-house fabrication by its local artillery units' machine shops. We dismissed AEC's protest that Ferrulmatic could not perform at its proposed labor rates because it concerned an issue of responsibility that is not normally reviewed by our Office absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith or a failure by the contracting officer to apply definitive responsibility criteria which were not involved in this case. With respect to the evaluation of proposals, we found that the Army's decision to award to Ferrulmatic was based upon a reasonable evaluation of the offerors' method of operation. We specifically found reasonable the agency's conclusion that AEC's proposal offering limited in-house capability and use of "associate" firms and available on-call part-time or full-time consultants was less desirable and more risky that Ferrulmatic's proposal of in-house personnel and facilities. Finally, we concluded that AEC's allegation that the requirement under the contract involved production, and not services, was untimely since this allegation concerned a solicitation impropriety which should have been filed before the closing date for receipt of proposals. We nevertheless, also found that the issue was without merit because our review of the solicitation showed it primarily was for engineering design services.

Concerning AEC's request for reconsideration, we initially note that our Office will not consider a request for reconsideration that does not contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a) (1987).

In its reconsideration request AEC essentially reiterates the contentions it made in its initial protest. AEC again argues that Ferrulmatic will not only design but later produce the requirement in violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation's prohibition of organizational conflicts of interest and that the Army has no in-house manpower to produce the training projectiles. AEC further reiterates its other arguments regarding Ferrulmatic's ability to perform at its proposed labor rates and the alleged unreasonableness of the Army's technical evaluation of its proposal. For example, AEC specifically again claims that the awardee cannot perform at its proposed labor rates, but fails to show why our conclusion that this issue concerns a matter of responsibility which we do not review is erroneous. Further, AEC argues that a definitive responsibility criteria was not applied, but fails to identify any definitive criteria in the RFP. AEC also questions our reliance on the agency report as a basis for our review of the technical evaluation and the organizational conflict of interest, without an independent investigation of the matter. In this connection, it is not our practice to conduct investigations pursuant to our bid protest function for the purpose of establishing whether a protester may have a valid basis of protest. Target Financial Corp. Reconsideration, B-226683.2, July 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 108. AEC offers no evidence refuting the Army's report or the Army's ability to produce in-house the training projectiles, and in fact suggests the Army has, at least, the ability to produce prototypes. Lacking such evidence, AEC has failed to show that our original conclusions were in error. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a) (1987).

Finally, in our original decision we dismissed a second AEC protest against award to Electronics Corporation under RFP No. DAAA21-87-R 0185, which alleged grounds similar to those raised in the protest concerning RFP-0092. We found AEC was not an interested party to protest the award where, as here, another offeror had a higher technical score and lower price than AEC, and thus, if we were to sustain AEC's protest against the awardee, the other offeror, not AEC, would be next in line for award. its request for reconsideration, AEC asserts that our dismissal precludes them from the necessary "definitions of procurement actions" which would enable them to conduct business in the future. We note that the same issues were addressed in the protest against RFP0092, and that AEC again merely disagrees with our conclusions. As with its failure to provide any evidence to refute our initial decision, AEC's mere disagreement with our conclusions provides no basis on which to disturb that decision.

Since AEC's request essentially reiterates earlier arguments and merely expresses disagreement with our decision, we find that the request for reconsideration fails to specify information not previously considered or to present anything indicating that our decision contains errors of law. See Buchanan Construction Co.-- Request for Reconsideration, B-224171.3, Mar. 19, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 309.

The request for reconsideration is denied.