[Request for Reconsideration]

A firm requested, for a second time, reconsideration of a GAO decision concerning the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rejection of its bid and the GAO recommendation that the requirement be resolicited because a defective solicitation requirement had been discovered. The requester alleged that: (1) GAO erroneously made the assumption that a bid requirement was so vague as to misrepresent NLRB intentions; (2) GAO was estopped from finding error because prior GAO decisions did not question similar provisions; (3) GAO improperly concluded that the requester's low bid price was academic; and (4) award should have been made to the requester regardless of the bid's defectiveness. GAO held that: (1) the NLRB failure to clarify the requirement in question rendered the solicitation defective; (2) GAO may object to a procurement at any time, regardless of previous decisions; (3) regardless of the requester's legitimately low bid price, it was academic because the procurement was improper; and (4) award to the requester, regardless of the defective requirement, would not have served the Government's needs. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.