B-238555.3, Sep 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD 219
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester essentially reiterates contentions raised and considered in our prior decision and fails to show any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of prior decision. Wherein we denied MTS's protest that the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable was reasonable under request for proposals (RFP) No. MTS challenged the rejection of its proposal on the grounds that the contracting activity applied more stringent and specific criteria than were set forth in the solicitation. Which we held was an inadequate substitute for the detailed and complete information necessary to establish that what the firm proposes will meet the agency's minimum needs.
B-238555.3, Sep 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD 219
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester essentially reiterates contentions raised and considered in our prior decision and fails to show any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of prior decision.
Attorneys
Management Training Systems-- Reconsideration:
Management Training Systems (MTS) requests reconsideration of our decision Management Training Sys., B-238555.2, July 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. ***, wherein we denied MTS's protest that the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable was reasonable under request for proposals (RFP) No. F33600-89-R-0381, issued by the Department of the Air Force for the teaching of three supervisory and management training courses.
We deny the request for reconsideration.
In its protest, MTS challenged the rejection of its proposal on the grounds that the contracting activity applied more stringent and specific criteria than were set forth in the solicitation. We concluded that the agency evaluated MTS' proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria as revealed in the RFP and did not improperly apply hidden criteria. Our review of MTS' proposal revealed that the proposal contained only general statements that it met the requirements of the solicitation, which we held was an inadequate substitute for the detailed and complete information necessary to establish that what the firm proposes will meet the agency's minimum needs.
In its request for reconsideration, MTS essentially disagrees with our conclusion that its proposal amounted to a blanket offer of compliance and asserts that we misinterpreted its protest. For example, MTS contends that our decision erred in classifying its challenge against the evaluation as one alleging that the agency applied "undisclosed criteria" to its proposal. MTS argues that the agency did not apply undisclosed criteria, but rather that it applied undisclosed "specifics to the criteria." There is no functional difference between the term "criteria" or the phrase "specifics to the criteria" in this context and therefore our categorization constitutes neither a factual nor a legal error. similarly find no merit to MTS' other assertions of mischaracterization.
Other than alleging mischaracterization, MTS' reconsideration request merely repeats each contention it previously raised. We considered each issue raised by MTS, and its mere disagreement with our previous decision and reassertion of its prior position does not constitute evidence of factual or legal errors in our decision which would warrant reconsidering this matter. Roth Bros., Inc.-- Recon., B-235539.2, Sept. 15, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 233.
The request for reconsideration is denied.