B-241643.2, Jun 21, 1991, 91-1 CPD 588

B-241643.2, Jun 21, 1991, 91-1 CPD 588

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show any error of fact or law, or present information not previously considered, that would warrant reversal or modification of our decision that agency properly rejected protester's bid as nonresponsive because of an ambiguity with respect to compliance with the required completion schedule.

Attorneys

Terra Vac, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Terra Vac, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, Terra Vac, Inc., B-241643, Feb. 7, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 140, wherein we denied Terra Vac's protest against the agency's rejection of its bid as nonresponsive under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62472-90-B-5338, issued by the Department of the Navy for construction, start-up, and prove-out of a ground water withdrawal and treatment system.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The IFB, as originally issued, required contract completion not later than 604 days after the date set for commencement of work; amendment 0002 revised the completion schedule to 374 days after the date for commencement of work. Terra Vac's bid was rejected as nonresponsive because it included a chart showing a 414-day completion schedule. In its protest, Terra Vac complained that, since it acknowledged amendment 0002 containing the revised 374-day completion schedule, this schedule superseded the 414-day completion schedule submitted with its bid, which the protester claims in a post-bid opening affidavit was prepared prior to its acknowledgment of amendment 0002.

We denied the protest, holding that Terra Vac's bid did not unequivocally bind the firm to perform in accordance with the 374-day schedule in amendment 0002. We stated that even though Terra Vac acknowledged amendment 0002 shortening the project completion schedule in its undated bid form, the chart showing a 414-day completion schedule in accordance with the IFB's original, longer delivery schedule, created doubt as to whether Terra Vac intended to bind itself to deliver in accordance with the completion schedule as amended. Since the bid itself contained no other indication that the 374-day schedule was intended to be controlling and Terra Vac's post-bid opening statement could not be used to establish its intent to be bound by the 374-day completion schedule, we found Terra Vac's bid was ambiguous and therefore properly rejected as nonresponsive.

In its request for reconsideration, Terra Vac reiterates its argument that its bid should be considered responsive in accordance with our decision in Alaska Mechanical, Inc., B-225260.2, Feb. 25, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 216. Again, specifically, Terra Vac asserts that here, as in Alaska, there is only one reasonable interpretation of its bid, namely, that as stated in its post-bid-opening affidavit, the 374 day completion schedule acknowledged in amendment 0002 superseded the 414-day schedule mistakenly included in its bid, because the firm acknowledged the shorter schedule subsequent to preparing the longer schedule. Terra Vac alleges that since nothing in the record contradicts its affidavit containing this information, we should have considered its contents instead of disregarding it as a post-bid opening statement.

A request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of our prior decision is deemed warranted and must specify any errors of law made or information not previously considered. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1991). Repetition of arguments made during the original protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard. Sal Esparza, Inc.-- Recon., B-231097.2, Dec. 27, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 624.

Terra Vac's reconsideration request merely repeats contentions previously raised and considered in our prior decision. In that decision, we specifically found that Alaska was inapposite here. In Alaska, we held that the bidder's pre-bid-opening statement could be used to establish which of two conflicting acceptance periods the bidder intended, because information submitted prior to bid opening is relevant to determining the bidder's intention to be bound by the solicitation requirements; in contrast, Terra Vac relies upon a post bid-opening statement, which we held could not be used to establish which of two conflicting completion schedules the bidder intended, because post-bid-opening statements are insufficient to establish intent to be bound by an IFB's requirements. The fact that nothing in the record contradicts Terra Vac's post-bid- opening affidavit does not change the fact that post-bid-opening explanations cannot be used to render an ambiguous bid responsive.

Terra Vac has not shown any mistake of fact or law in our previous decision.

The request for reconsideration is denied.