B-241590.5, B-241636.5, B-241638.5, B-241640.5, Jun 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD 528

B-241590.5,B-241640.5,B-241638.5,B-241636.5: Jun 5, 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 is denied where the requesting party does not show that decision contains either errors of fact or law or does not present information not previously considered which would warrant reversal or modification of our decision. Harlan argues generally that our decisions and regulations which set forth our standards for determining the timeliness of protests which are initially filed with a contracting agency and our definition of an interested party are inconsistent with general administrative practice. Including the regulation relating to protests which have previously been filed with a contracting agency.

B-241590.5, B-241636.5, B-241638.5, B-241640.5, Jun 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD 528

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where the requesting party does not show that decision contains either errors of fact or law or does not present information not previously considered which would warrant reversal or modification of our decision.

Attorneys

Harlan Associates-- Reconsideration:

Harlan Associates requests that we reconsider our decision Harlan Assocs., B-241590.2 et al., Feb. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 157, and that we also reconsider our March 12, 1991, dismissal of its supplemental protests. Harlan essentially expresses disagreement with our decisions and repeats arguments it made previously.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1991). Harlan's repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protests and mere disagreement with our decisions does not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.-- Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.

Harlan argues generally that our decisions and regulations which set forth our standards for determining the timeliness of protests which are initially filed with a contracting agency and our definition of an interested party are inconsistent with general administrative practice. Our bid protest authority derives from the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. Secs. 3551-3556 (1988), which clearly provides us with the authority to impose administrative requirements for the prompt and effective resolution of protests. The filing deadlines contained in our regulations, including the regulation relating to protests which have previously been filed with a contracting agency, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(3) (1991), are prescribed under the authority of CICA and are consistent with the statute's mandate. See Darla Envtl., Inc.-- Recon., B-232401.2, Nov. 16, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 482. With respect to our definition of an interested party, we note that our regulation mirrors the definition provided in the statute. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(2); 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.0(a). Our application of these regulations to Harlan's protests was clearly proper.

The requests for reconsideration are denied.