B-228576.2, Feb 29, 1988
Highlights
DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is affirmed where the protester has not shown any error of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the decision. DLA7OO-87-R-1476 was improper because the awardee allegedly would not furnish standard commercial ball valves constructed as required. We found the award unobjectionable because the awardee's offer had taken no exception to the RFP's requirements and because the question of whether the awardee was capable of supplying a compliant part was a matter of responsibility that was not for our review absent circumstances not applicable in this case. Smith still insists that the awardee will not supply a compliant product and argues that the requirement should be resolicited if the agency does not intend to enforce the specification requirements.
B-228576.2, Feb 29, 1988
DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is affirmed where the protester has not shown any error of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the decision.
W. H. Smith Hardware Company-- Request for Reconsideration: W. H. Smith Hardware Company requests reconsideration of our decision, W. H. Smith Hardware Co., B-228576, Feb. 4, 1988, 88-1 CPD ***, denying Smith's protest that the award made under Defense Construction Supply Center (DCSC) request for proposals (RFP) No. DLA7OO-87-R-1476 was improper because the awardee allegedly would not furnish standard commercial ball valves constructed as required. We found the award unobjectionable because the awardee's offer had taken no exception to the RFP's requirements and because the question of whether the awardee was capable of supplying a compliant part was a matter of responsibility that was not for our review absent circumstances not applicable in this case.
We deny the request for reconsideration.
Smith still insists that the awardee will not supply a compliant product and argues that the requirement should be resolicited if the agency does not intend to enforce the specification requirements.
Smith's position is essentially a restatement of its original protest. Its reconsideration request, thus, basically disagrees with our decision, but presents no new argument or information establishing that our conclusion was legally or factually erroneous. We therefore deny the request for reconsideration. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1987); Emerald Maintenance, Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-225735.2, et al., July 6, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 15.