B-226683.2, Jul 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 108

B-226683.2: Jul 29, 1987

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the request contains no statement of the facts or legal grounds warranting reversal or modification but merely restates arguments made by the protester and considered previously by the General Accounting Office. The RFP was issued by the United States Department of Justice. That it was denied user site locations. That it was never advised of a cutoff date for revision of its proposal. That its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range. We dismissed the first two bases of protest as untimely since they concerned alleged solicitation improprieties which should have been protested prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals.

B-226683.2, Jul 29, 1987, 87-2 CPD 108

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the request contains no statement of the facts or legal grounds warranting reversal or modification but merely restates arguments made by the protester and considered previously by the General Accounting Office.

Target Financial Corp.-- Reconsideration:

Target Financial Corporation (TFC) requests that we reconsider our decision in Target Financial Corp., B-226683, June 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. ***, denying in part and dismissing in part its protest of the award of a contract to Harris Corporation, Lanier Business Products, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-87-0827. The RFP was issued by the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for a 90-day lease of 130 word processing systems, including training and maintenance.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

TFC had protested that it never received a written description of the equipment sought by DEA, that it was denied user site locations, that it was never advised of a cutoff date for revision of its proposal, that its proposal was improperly excluded from the competitive range, and that DEA failed to hold meaningful discussions before eliminating its proposal from the competitive range. We dismissed the first two bases of protest as untimely since they concerned alleged solicitation improprieties which should have been protested prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. We also dismissed as untimely TFC's objection to its exclusion from the competitive range, since TFC did not protest its exclusion to DEA or our Office within 10 days after it learned of the reason for its exclusion. We denied TFC's contention that DEA never advised it of a cutoff date for revision of its proposal since the record showed that DEA informed TFC that it needed answers to questions by a specific time and date to complete evaluation of TFC's proposals. We also held that DEA met its obligation to hold meaningful discussions since it sent TFC questions that should have led TFC into the areas of its proposal needing amplification, and gave TFC an opportunity to revise its proposal with responses to these questions.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1986), a request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is warranted and must specify any errors of law made in the decision or information not previously considered. Information not previously considered refers to information which was overlooked by our Office or information to which the protester did not have access when the initial protest was pending. Flight Resources, Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-2206804, July 15, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 66.

TFC presents no new facts or arguments to indicate error in our previous decision. The request merely restates arguments made by TFC and previously considered by our Office, and asserts that our Office should conduct an independent investigation. However, as we have previously held, the protester has the burden of proving its case; we will not conduct investigations for the purpose of establishing whether a protester may have a valid basis for protest. Alan Scott Division-- Request for Reconsideration, B-225210.3, Mar. 6, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 259. Thus, while the request for reconsideration clearly reflects TFC's disagreement with our decision, it does not meet the requirement for a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds warranting reversal or modification, nor provide us with any other basis to reconsider the protest.