Skip to main content

B-244724.2, Aug 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***

B-244724.2 Aug 07, 1991
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration based on arguments that protester could have. Submit in initial protest is denied. PDC's protest alleged that the award to Corblin was improper because PDC's offered compressor is manufactured entirely in the United States while Corblin's is not. PDC is a small disadvantaged business. Which stated that PDC's proposed compressor was unacceptable because it did not meet 10 specific solicitation requirements. We had no basis to find that the Navy's rejection of PDC's proposal as technically unacceptable based on the 10 deficiencies was in error. Since we thus had no basis to disturb the agency's determination that PDC's proposal was technically unacceptable.

View Decision

B-244724.2, Aug 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration based on arguments that protester could have, but did not, submit in initial protest is denied; General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate piecemeal development of protest issues. Sy M. Afzal for the protester. Catherine M. Evans, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

PDC Machines, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

PDC Machines, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, PDC Machines, Inc., B-244724, July 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. ***, in which we dismissed its protest of the rejection of its proposal and the award of a contract to Burton Corblin North America, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N61331-91R-0048, issued by the Department of the Navy for a compressor. PDC's protest alleged that the award to Corblin was improper because PDC's offered compressor is manufactured entirely in the United States while Corblin's is not, PDC is a small disadvantaged business, and PDC offered a lower price.

We deny the request.

PDC included with its protest documents a copy of the Navy's award notification letter to PDC, which stated that PDC's proposed compressor was unacceptable because it did not meet 10 specific solicitation requirements. While PDC's protest stated generally that its offered compressor meets the RFP requirements, it did not specifically refute any of the Navy's conclusions. Noting that our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of protest, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(c)(4) (1991), and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.1(e), we held that PDC's unsupported assertion that its compressor met the Navy's requirements did not meet this standard. Therefore, we had no basis to find that the Navy's rejection of PDC's proposal as technically unacceptable based on the 10 deficiencies was in error. Since we thus had no basis to disturb the agency's determination that PDC's proposal was technically unacceptable, we concluded that PDC was not in line for award and therefore was not an interested party to challenge the award to Corblin on the basis of that firm's manufacturing location, small business status, or price. PDC Machines, Inc., B-244724, supra.

In order for a protester's request for reconsideration to be considered by our Office, our Regulations require that the protester submit a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law or fact or information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12. Information not previously considered means information that was not available to the protester when the initial protest was filed. Global Crane Inst.-- Recon., B-218120.2, May 28, 1985, 85-1 CPD Para. 606. Any other interpretation would permit a protester to present information in a piecemeal fashion, and undermine our goal of affording parties the opportunity to present their cases with the least disruption possible to the orderly and expeditious conduct of government procurements. Dynalectron Corp., 65 Comp.Gen. 92 (1985), 85-2 CPD Para. 634. Here, PDC's reconsideration request challenges in detail the Navy's 10 reasons for the rejection of PDC's compressor. Since PDC could have presented these arguments in its initial protest, but did not do so, it is not entitled to reconsideration of the matter based on these arguments.

We note, moreover, that the arguments offered in PDC's reconsideration request would have been untimely even if they had been raised in the initial protest. Specifically, PDC argues that the specifications of the Corblin unit exceed the Navy's minimum needs. Our Regulations provide that protests of apparent solicitation improprieties must be filed prior to the time set for receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(1); Picker Int'l, Inc., 68 Comp.Gen. 265 (1989), 89-1 CPD Para. 188. solicitation requirements for a Burton Corblin model No. D124C165 or equal -- when it prepared its proposal. Yet, instead of protesting the matter to the contracting officer or our Office before proposals were due, it waited until after the proposal due date to take exception to the listed salient characteristics of the Corblin model. Even if there were technical merit to PDC's position, PDC should have raised the issue to the Navy before proposals were due, to afford the agency an opportunity to consider and respond to PDC's position before it had accepted other offers. The request for reconsideration is denied.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs