B-241302.3, May 21, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

B-241302.3: May 21, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest challenging agency's rejection of protester's bid as nonresponsive is denied where protester fails to specify in any detail the basis for its contention that the decision is in error and instead alludes to another issue not timely raised or considered in the initial protest. Auto-X merely asserts that it is "appealing our decision. Stating in total as follows: "Due to information and belief we intend to prove that all the other bidders are nonresponsive.". A request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which a reversal or modification of the initial decision is warranted as well as specify any errors of law made or information not previously considered by our Office in rendering our prior decision.

B-241302.3, May 21, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of decision denying protest challenging agency's rejection of protester's bid as nonresponsive is denied where protester fails to specify in any detail the basis for its contention that the decision is in error and instead alludes to another issue not timely raised or considered in the initial protest. Conrad Mikulec for the protester. Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

Auto-X Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Auto-X Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Auto-X Inc., B-241302.2, Feb. 6, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. ***, denying its challenge to the rejection of its bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F09607-90 BA002, issued by the Department of the Air Force for automatic stove top fire extinguishers for the military family housing units at Moody Air Force Base.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

In our initial decision, we found that the Air Force had properly rejected Auto-X's bid as nonresponsive for failure to submit descriptive literature demonstrating that its product complied with the requirement in the IFB that the cylinder containing the extinguishing agent be installed in the cabinet above the stove. In its request for reconsideration of our decision dated February 19, 1991, Auto-X merely asserts that it is "appealing our decision," and adds that, although it had requested the "bid copies of all bidders" from the Air Force in early December 1990, it had never received them. In response to a telephone call from our Office advising Auto-X that its initial letter did not state a basis for reconsideration of our decision, Auto-X submitted a letter on February 20, stating in total as follows: "Due to information and belief we intend to prove that all the other bidders are nonresponsive."

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1990), a request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which a reversal or modification of the initial decision is warranted as well as specify any errors of law made or information not previously considered by our Office in rendering our prior decision. Here, Auto-X has failed to explain in any detail the basis for its contention that our decision was in error. Instead, Auto X alludes to another issue-- the alleged nonresponsiveness of the other bidders-- which it states it will now attempt to demonstrate once it receives copies of the other bidders' bids from the contracting agency.

This challenge to the other bidders' bids was not raised by the protester during the initial protest and was not part of the decision on the protest. Auto-X now maintains that it requested but did not receive copies of the other bids from the agency in early December, presumably suggesting that it was prevented from pursuing the issue. However, Auto-X clearly could have, but did not, raise this issue in its initial protest, which was limited to a challenge to the agency's decision to reject its own bid as nonresponsive; any attempt to do so now is untimely. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2). At a minimum, Auto-X failed to diligently pursue the issue since, according to its own account, Auto-X waited until "early December" to request copies of the other bids, well after bid opening on September 14, 1990, and the filing of its protest on October 22.

Since Auto-X has failed to present a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which a reversal or modification of our initial decision is warranted, the request for reconsideration is denied.