B-191252, JUL 7, 1978

B-191252, JUL 7, 1978

DIGEST: PRIOR DECISION AFFIRMED UPON RECONSIDERATION SINCE PROTESTER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT PRIOR DECISION WAS BASED ON ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW.

VIRGINIA-MARYLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. - RECONSIDERATION:

VIRGINIA-MARYLAND ASSOCIATES, INC. (VMA), HAS REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN VIRGINIA-MARYLAND ASSOCIATES, INC., B-191252, MARCH 28, 1978, 78-1 CPD 238, IN WHICH WE DISMISSED ITS PROTEST.

VMA HAD PROTESTED THAT THE PROPOSED AWARDEE UNDER A SOLICITATION FOR LAMPS COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECIFICATIONS. VMA ALSO PROTESTED THE FIRM'S PERFORMANCE UNDER A PREVIOUSLY AWARDED CONTRACT.

WE DISMISSED THE PROTEST BECAUSE IT INVOLVED THE AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE PROPOSED AWARDEE'S RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH WE DO NOT REVIEW ABSENT AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD ON THE PART OF PROCURING OFFICIALS OR THE FAILURE TO APPLY DEFINITIVE RESPONSIBILITY CRITERIA LISTED IN THE SOLICITATION, AND NEITHER EXCEPTION APPLIED. THE PORTION OF THE PROTEST RELATING TO PERFORMANCE OF THE PREVIOUSLY AWARDED CONTRACT WAS DISMISSED ALSO, SINCE IT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, WHICH WE GENERALLY DO NOT REVIEW.

SECTION 20.9 OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 20.9 (1977), WHICH PROVIDES FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION, REQUIRES THAT REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION "CONTAIN A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION IS DEEMED WARRANTED, SPECIFYING ANY ERRORS OF LAW MADE ***". VMA'S REQUEST MERELY REITERATES THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN ITS ORIGINAL PROTEST, AND DISAGREES WITH OUR DECISION. SINCE THE PROTESTER HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT OUR PRIOR CONCLUSION IS ERRONEOUS, WE SEE NO REASON TO CONSIDER THESE ARGUMENTS FURTHER.

THEREFORE, THE PRIOR DECISION IS AFFIRMED.