B-237864.2, May 31, 1990, 90-1 CPD ***
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Decision denying a protest because the protester failed to present any support or specifics to substantiate its allegation that the firm represented by an offeror as the manufacturer of the items to be supplied would not be the manufacturer and the items may be of foreign origin is affirmed where the protester in its request for reconsideration still offers no support for its allegations. East West argued that the firm named in the awardee's quotation as the manufacturer of the abrasive wheels to be supplied was not the actual manufacturer. The decision is affirmed. East West argues on reconsideration that since neither the agency nor the awardee has demonstrated that Norton was the manufacturer.
B-237864.2, May 31, 1990, 90-1 CPD ***
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Decision denying a protest because the protester failed to present any support or specifics to substantiate its allegation that the firm represented by an offeror as the manufacturer of the items to be supplied would not be the manufacturer and the items may be of foreign origin is affirmed where the protester in its request for reconsideration still offers no support for its allegations.
Attorneys
East West Research, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration:
East West Research, Inc., requests reconsideration of our decision East West Research, Inc., B-237864, Feb. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 218, denying its protest under Defense General Supply Center request for quotations No. DLA400-89-Q-NC99. East West argued that the firm named in the awardee's quotation as the manufacturer of the abrasive wheels to be supplied was not the actual manufacturer. We held that since East West did not offer any evidence in support of its contention, we had no basis to object to the award on the face of the awardee's listing in its quotation of Norton as the manufacturer.
The decision is affirmed.
East West argues on reconsideration that since neither the agency nor the awardee has demonstrated that Norton was the manufacturer, its protest should have been sustained. In this regard, the protester points out that a letter from Norton stating that the item was produced domestically, mentioned in our decision, does not address the question of who was the manufacturer.
The Norton letter cited in our decision concerns only the domestic origin of the item. It was mentioned in our decision because we viewed the protest as including the argument that the item might have been of foreign origin. As far as East West's contention that Norton is not the manufacturer of the item concerned, East West did not during the initial protest nor does it now offer any support or specifics to substantiate its position that Norton is not the manufacturer of the abrasive wheel. Since there is nothing in the record to support either of East West's contentions, we affirm our decision.