Matter of: Recreonics Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-246339.2 Date: July 15, 1992

B-246339.2: Jul 15, 1992

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 Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds that warrants reversal but merely restates arguments made by the protester which were previously considered by the General Accounting Office. Which was not permitted by the solicitation. Recreonics contended that the Air Force's rejection of its bid was improper because the firm's acknowledgment of receipt of the amendment by facsimile was necessitated by the agency's failure to timely provide Recreonics with the solicitation amendment. Constituted a minor informality that should have been waived by the agency. We found that the failure to acknowledge receipt of the amendment by submission of a hard copy was not a minor informality that could be waived because the amendment was material and the solicitation prohibited acknowledgment of amendments by facsimile transmission.

Matter of: Recreonics Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-246339.2 Date: July 15, 1992

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures GAO decisions Reconsideration Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds that warrants reversal but merely restates arguments made by the protester which were previously considered by the General Accounting Office.

Attorneys

DECISION

Recreonics Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision, Recreonics Corp., B-246339, Mar. 2, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 249 in which we denied its protest challenging the rejection of its low bid and the award of a contract to Aquatic Renovation Systems, Inc., under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F19650-91-B-0041, issued by the Department of the Air Force to resurface the swimming pool at Hanscom Air Force Base.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The Air Force rejected Recreonics's bid as nonresponsive for failure to properly acknowledge a material amendment because Recreonics acknowledged the amendment by facsimile transmission, which was not permitted by the solicitation. In its protest, Recreonics contended that the Air Force's rejection of its bid was improper because the firm's acknowledgment of receipt of the amendment by facsimile was necessitated by the agency's failure to timely provide Recreonics with the solicitation amendment, and constituted a minor informality that should have been waived by the agency. We found that the failure to acknowledge receipt of the amendment by submission of a hard copy was not a minor informality that could be waived because the amendment was material and the solicitation prohibited acknowledgment of amendments by facsimile transmission. We also found no evidence in the record to support Recreonics's argument that the Air Force's procedure for mailing amendments was deficient.

In its reconsideration request, Recreonics maintains that our prior decision ignores the uncontroverted evidence in the record that the agency's procedure for sending out amendments was deficient. Recreonics also argues that there was undisputed evidence in this case to permit a finding that the agency had made a deliberate effort to exclude the firm from competing.

To obtain reversal or modification of a decision on reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants its reversal or modification. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1992). Repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and mere disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274.

Contrary to Recreonics's assertion that we ignored uncontroverted evidence in the record regarding the agency's distribution procedure, we specifically considered the circumstances surrounding the dissemination of the solicitation amendment and concluded that the agency had used reasonable methods to distribute the amendment to all interested parties. As discussed in the initial decision, we will not conclude that an agency's distribution procedure is inadequate based only on delayed or non-receipt of material by a prospective bidder. Obviously, as the protester contends, delays between a agency's mailing dates and receipt dates is some evidence that there may be a problem with the agency's mailing procedures. Based on this evidence alone, however, we cannot conclude that there has been a violation of statute or regulation. See, e.g., Fort Myer Constr. Corp., B-239611, Sept. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 200; EMSA Ltd. Partnership, B-237846, Mar. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 326; Western Roofing Serv., B-232666.4, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 242; Shemya Constructors, 68 Comp.Gen. 213 (1989), 89-1 CPD Para. 108.

In sum, Recreonics's request for reconsideration is based on the same arguments which it previously made. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.