B-215482.2, JUL 19, 1984, 84-2 CPD 64
Highlights
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IN WHICH GAO DENIED PROTEST ALLEGING THAT PROTESTER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR LABOR SURPLUS AREA (LSA) PREFERENCE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PROTESTER'S BID LISTED A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS NOT IN AN LSA IS DISMISSED BECAUSE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ALLEGES NO ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW IN DECISION. DLA100-84-B-0618 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ITS BID LISTED A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS NOT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S LSA LIST. SANDINA DOES NOT ARGUE THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION WAS BASED UPON FACTUAL OR LEGAL ERRORS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 21.9(A) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. 4 C.F.R.
B-215482.2, JUL 19, 1984, 84-2 CPD 64
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ERROR OF FACT OR LAW - NOT ESTABLISHED DIGEST: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IN WHICH GAO DENIED PROTEST ALLEGING THAT PROTESTER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR LABOR SURPLUS AREA (LSA) PREFERENCE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PROTESTER'S BID LISTED A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS NOT IN AN LSA IS DISMISSED BECAUSE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ALLEGES NO ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW IN DECISION.
SANDINA ENTERPRISES, INC.:
SANDINA ENTERPRISES, INC. (SANDINA), REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN SANDINA ENTERPRISES, INC., B-215482, JUNE 28, 1984, 84-1 CPD . IN THAT DECISION WE SUMMARILY DENIED SANDINA'S PROTEST THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR A LABOR SURPLUS AREA (LSA) PREFERENCE UNDER THE TERMS OF INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DLA100-84-B-0618 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ITS BID LISTED A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS NOT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S LSA LIST.
IN ITS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, SANDINA DOES NOT ARGUE THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION WAS BASED UPON FACTUAL OR LEGAL ERRORS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 21.9(A) OF OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. 4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1983). ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION.
SANDINA ALSO REQUESTS THAT OUR OFFICE REVIEW THE BIDS OF OTHER BIDDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LSA PREFERENCE IS PROPERLY APPLIED IN ACCORD WITH THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION. HOWEVER, SANDINA HAS PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTING AGENCY INTENDS TO EVALUATE BIDS AND AWARD A CONTRACT CONTRARY TO THE INVITATION'S LSA PREFERENCE CLAUSE. SANDINA APPEARS TO BE MERELY ANTICIPATING IMPROPER AGENCY ACTIONS. THE CONTRACTING AGENCY WILL PRESUMABLY EVALUATE BIDS AND GIVE LSA PREFERENCES WHERE APPROPRIATE IN ACCORD WITH THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION FOR BIDS AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. THEREFORE, THIS PROTEST BASIS IS PREMATURE AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. INTERSCIENCE SYSTEMS, INC.; AMPERIF CORPORATION, B-202021, AUG. 31, 1982, 82-2 CPD PARA. 187 AT 8; PROFESSIONAL CARPET SERVICE, B-183645, AUG. 4, 1975, 75-2 CPD PARA. 79 AT 4.
ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS SANDINA'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.