B-236462.4, Mar 21, 1990, 90-1 CPD 310

B-236462.4: Mar 21, 1990

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 is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds warranting reversal. Rejected the protester's argument that the Navy was required to cancel the solicitation because the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a revised wage rate determination applicable to the solicitation approximately 1 month after bid opening but prior to award. IBI also reiterates its argument that the agency was required to cancel the solicitation once it received the revised wage determination from DOL. Has not presented any evidence or made any new arguments that were not previously considered.

B-236462.4, Mar 21, 1990, 90-1 CPD 310

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where request contains no statement of facts or legal grounds warranting reversal, but merely restates arguments considered, and rejected, by the General Accounting Office in denying in part and dismissing in part original protests.

Attorneys

IBI Security Service, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration:

IBI Security Service, Inc., requests reconsideration of our decision, IBI Security Serv., Inc., B-236462 et al., Nov. 14, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 459, in which we denied in part and dismissed in part IBI's protests concerning the Service Contract Act wage rate determination in a Navy solicitation for guard services. We disagreed with IBI's view that the Navy improperly determined which classes of employees required under the solicitation fell within the coverage of the Act, and rejected the protester's argument that the Navy was required to cancel the solicitation because the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a revised wage rate determination applicable to the solicitation approximately 1 month after bid opening but prior to award.

In its reconsideration, IBI argues, as it did in its protests, that the contracting officer improperly determined which classes of employees required under the solicitation fell within the coverage of the Act. IBI also reiterates its argument that the agency was required to cancel the solicitation once it received the revised wage determination from DOL. IBI obviously disagrees with our decision, but has not presented any evidence or made any new arguments that were not previously considered.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a party requesting reconsideration must show that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law or that the protester has information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1989). Repetition of arguments made during the original protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard. San Sierra Business Sys.-- Request for Recon., B-233858.2, Feb. 1, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 104. Here, IBI essentially reiterates two of its original arguments raised during the protests which we have already carefully considered and rejected, and offers no new evidence or information.

The reconsideration request is denied.