B-244649.2, Mar 1, 1992

B-244649.2: Mar 1, 1992

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where the protester has not shown that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law. The agency's justification and approval (J&A) for the use of other than full and open competition explained that there were five mobilization base producers of the grenade metal parts (components of a critical mobilization item deemed combat essential). The J&A stated that unless the competition for the supplemental quantity of grenade metal parts was limited to the three mobilization base producers which had not received FY 1991 awards. EMCO disagrees with our initial decision and reiterates its belief that the competition for the supplemental FY 1991 quantity of grenade metal parts should not have been limited to the three firms without current FY 1991 contracts and that all five mobilization base producers should have been afforded the opportunity to participate in this competition.

B-244649.2, Mar 1, 1992

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where the protester has not shown that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law, and the protester merely disagrees with our prior decision.

Attorneys

Matter of: EMCO, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

EMCO, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, EMCO, Inc., B-244649, Oct. 28, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 382. In that decision, we denied EMCO's protest concerning the decision by the United States Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command to limit competition under a solicitation for a supplemental fiscal year (FY) 1991 quantity of grenade metal parts to mobilization base producers without a current FY 1991 production contract for the basic quantity of grenade metal parts.

The agency's justification and approval (J&A) for the use of other than full and open competition explained that there were five mobilization base producers of the grenade metal parts (components of a critical mobilization item deemed combat essential). The J&A provided that since EMCO and one other firm had received initial FY 1991 awards to produce the basic quantity of grenade metal parts, which would enable them to maintain active production until August 1992, the competition under the solicitation for the supplemental quantity of grenade metal parts would be limited to the three mobilization base producers without FY 1991 awards in order to ensure the availability of at least one of the firms in the event of a national emergency or mobilization. The J&A also explained that while there had been a decline in funding and the agency had to accept a smaller number of producers in the base than the five producers its mobilization projections justified, the agency wanted to maintain as many active producers as it reasonably could for as long as it could, subject to available funding. The J&A stated that unless the competition for the supplemental quantity of grenade metal parts was limited to the three mobilization base producers which had not received FY 1991 awards, upon completion of their respective FY 1990 contracts, the production lines of these firms would be placed in layaway status due to a lack of continuous active production, resulting in a loss of critical skills and operational production facilities in the event of a national emergency or mobilization. We therefore determined that the agency reasonably justified its decision to limit the competition for the supplemental FY 1991 quantity of grenade metal parts to the three mobilization base producers without current FY 1991 contracts in order to maintain the maximum number of active producers.

In its request for reconsideration, EMCO disagrees with our initial decision and reiterates its belief that the competition for the supplemental FY 1991 quantity of grenade metal parts should not have been limited to the three firms without current FY 1991 contracts and that all five mobilization base producers should have been afforded the opportunity to participate in this competition.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1991), 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. As we stated in our initial decision, the agency reasonably determined that in order to maintain as many active producers as possible, it would have to eliminate from the competition for the supplemental quantity of grenade metal parts EMCO and one other mobilization base producer-- both awardees under the initial FY 1991 solicitation-- and limit this competition to the three mobilization base producers which had not received any FY 1991 contracts. EMCO's repetition of arguments made during our consideration of its original protest and its mere disagreement with our prior decision do not meet the standard for reconsideration. Interior Elements, Inc.-- Recon., B-238117.2, Aug. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 139; R.E. Scherrer, Inc.-- Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88 2 CPD Para. 274.

Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.

Sep 27, 2016

Sep 22, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 20, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here