B-241858.2, Apr 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD 399

B-241858.2, Apr 23, 1991, 91-1 CPD 399

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration Request for reconsideration which fails to identify any specific factual or legal errors is denied; general statement that initial decision failed to consider all relevant information is insufficient to warrant reconsideration of prior decision.

Attorneys

Avtec, Inc.-- Reconsideration:

Avtec, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision in Modular Communications Sys., Inc., B-241858, Mar. 8, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 263 in which we sustained Modular Communications Systems's (Moducom) protest against the award of a contract for a dispatch console system to Avtec by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, under solicitation No. R5- 14-90-96.

We deny the request for reconsideration because the basis for the request was available but not submitted or argued during our consideration of the initial protest.

Moducom protested the award of a contract to Avtec on the grounds that the agency had improperly permitted Avtec to deviate from the specifications in seven specific areas. /1/ In its protest Moducom specifically identified and explained how Avtec's proposal failed to meet the specifications, and the protest submissions by the Forest Service and Avtec failed to specifically rebut any of these allegations, despite requests by our Office to the agency that they provide more specific information with respect to these issues. /2/ Our review of the record revealed that the agency had relaxed the specifications for Avtec in four respects, and that there was a reasonable possibility that Moducom was prejudiced as a result since Moducom's price was only slightly higher than Avtec's, its technical score was only slightly lower, and Moducom had met all of the specifications that Avtec had not. We recommended that if the relaxed specifications meet the agency's needs, the solicitation should be amended accordingly and another round of best and final offers should be solicited. Otherwise, we recommended that Avtec's contract be terminated for the convenience of the government and that award be made to Moducom, if otherwise appropriate.

In its request for reconsideration, Avtec argues that our Office did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the facts in support of the decision, and unreasonably relied on Moducom's evaluation of Avtec's proposal to the exclusion of all other pertinent information. Avtec does not, however, identify any factual error in our decision. Nor does Avtec, even now, specifically refute any of the identified areas in which its proposal was noncompliant. /3/

Under our Regulations, a request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which a reversal or modification of the initial decision is warranted as well as specify any errors of law made or information not previously considered by this Office in rendering its prior decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a). Information not previously considered means information that was not available when the initial protest was filed. Norfolk Dredging Co.-- Recon., B-236259.2, Oct. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 405. Failure to make all arguments or submit all information available during the course of the initial protest undermines the goals of our bid protest forum-- to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of all parties' arguments on a fully developed record-- and cannot justify reconsideration of our prior decision. The Dep't of the Army-- Request for Recon., B-237742.2, June 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD 546.

Since Avtec was fully apprised of Moducom's protest allegations, and did not specifically rebut them during the initial protest and, in fact, has yet to do so, we have no basis to reconsider our decision.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

/1/ Moducom requested and, with the authorization of Avtec, received a copy of Avtec's contract, including its technical proposal and revisions.

/2/ Avtec filed comments only on Moducom's initial protest letter and did not specifically rebut any of the technical issues raised in Moducom's protest. The agency report, and the supplemental report received in response to our requests, contained no explanation concerning the deficiencies cited by the protester.

/3/ Avtec also alleges that Moducom has never manufactured and, thus, cannot meet the specification requirement for a console system utilizing color touchscreen technology. This allegation challenges Moducom's ability to meet the specifications and constitutes a challenge to the agency's affirmative determination of responsibility, and thus is not for review by our Office under the circumstances present here. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1991).