Skip to main content

B-238857.3, Oct 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

B-238857.3 Oct 17, 1990
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester fails to present evidence of any error of fact or law in prior decision. DCA reiterates its argument that it was improper for the contracting officer to permit Jenkins. Which was incorporated into the solicitation by amendment No. 4. /1/ DCA argues that the contracting officer was required to evaluate all cost proposals on the same basis. That it was improper to permit Jenkins to propose rates lower than those included in amendment No. 4. We specifically found that the contracting officer's cost realism analysis was reasonable and that Jenkins' proposed costs were properly reviewed in light of the DOL certificate of exemption from the Service Contract Act for handicapped organizations.

View Decision

B-238857.3, Oct 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester fails to present evidence of any error of fact or law in prior decision.

Attorneys

Donald Clark Associates, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Donald Clark Associates, Inc. (DCA) requests reconsideration of our decision Donald Clark Assocs. Inc., B-238857; B-238857.2, Aug. 2, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. ***, wherein we denied DCA's protest against the award of a contract to Jenkins Memorial Center under request for proposals (RFP) No. 222-90-2012(P), issued by the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Of the several issues raised in its initial protest, DCA's reconsideration request concerns only one: the realism of the awardee's cost proposal.

DCA reiterates its argument that it was improper for the contracting officer to permit Jenkins, in its cost proposal, to apply the handicap exemption to the current Service Contract Act (SCA) wage determination, which was incorporated into the solicitation by amendment No. 4. /1/ DCA argues that the contracting officer was required to evaluate all cost proposals on the same basis, and that it was improper to permit Jenkins to propose rates lower than those included in amendment No. 4.

DCA's reconsideration request merely repeats a contention previously raised and considered in our prior decision. We specifically found that the contracting officer's cost realism analysis was reasonable and that Jenkins' proposed costs were properly reviewed in light of the DOL certificate of exemption from the Service Contract Act for handicapped organizations. DCA's mere disagreement with our previous decision and reassertion of its prior position does not constitute evidence of factual or legal errors in our decision, and thus does not warrant our reconsidering this matter. Roth Bros., Inc.-- Recon., B-235539.2, Sept. 19, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 233.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

/2/ The handicap exemption is a Department of Labor certificate which permits contractors employing the handicapped to pay them at a rate which is 85 percent of the SCA wage determination for the job.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs