https://www.gao.gov/products/114556

B-201686,B-201828: Mar 9, 1981

A firm requested reconsideration of a prior decision dismissing its protest against the award of contracts by the Department of the Army for rental and maintenance of washers and dryers. In that decision, GAO disagreed with the protester's argument that the Government should set forth a maximum specified age for equipment which bidders may propose since the agency determined that no age limitation...

https://www.gao.gov/products/114242

B-201686,B-201828: Feb 3, 1981

A company protested the award of any contract under two separate invitations for bids (IFB's). The company contended that the IFB's favored the incumbent contractor by permitting the furnishing of used equipment without setting a maximum age limit on the equipment a bidder could offer, thereby affording the incumbent contractor a lifetime contract. In response, GAO stated that specifications which...

https://www.gao.gov/products/408051

B-201686,B-201828: Feb 3, 1981

ARE SUMMARILY DENIED. TI CONTENDS THAT THE IFB'S FAVOR THE INCUMBENT CONTRACTOR BY PERMITTING THE FURNISHING OF USED WASHERS AND DRYERS THAT ARE IN GOOD WORKING ORDER WITHOUT SETTING A MAXIMUM AGE LIMIT ON THE EQUIPMENT A BIDDER MAY FURNISH. TI CONTENDS THAT THIS PROCEDURE IS RESTRICTIVE IN THAT IT AFFORDS THE PRESENT CONTRACTORS A LIFETIME CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. WE DISAGREED WITH TI'S ARGU...

https://www.gao.gov/products/402610

B-201686,B-201828: Mar 9, 1981

DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED SINCE PRIOR DECISION IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN FOUNDED ON ERROR OF LAW OR FACT. WE DISAGREED WITH TI'S ARGUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SET FORTH A MAXIMUM SPECIFIED AGE FOR EQUIPMENT WHICH BIDDERS MAY PROPOSE SINCE THE AGENCY DETERMINED THAT NO AGE LIMITATION WAS REQUIRED SO LONG AS THE EQUIPMENT WAS IN GOOD WORKING ORDER. TI STATES THAT IT FINDS I...