B-218624.2, B-218880.2, SEP 19, 1985, 85-2 CPD 306
Highlights
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST FILED BY CONTRACTING AGENCY IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO A JUNE 24. REQUIRE THE DISMISSAL OF ANY PROTEST WHERE THE MATTER INVOLVED IS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. IT HAS LONG BEEN THE POLICY OF OUR OFFICE NOT TO DECIDE SUCH MATTERS WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED IN THE CONTEXT OF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN HAVING US RECONSIDER OUR DECISION. WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE OUR VIEWS AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT EXPECTS US TO RECONSIDER THE EARLIER DECISION. THE NAVY'S RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DISMISSED.
B-218624.2, B-218880.2, SEP 19, 1985, 85-2 CPD 306
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PROCEDURES - RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS - ORIGINAL DECISION RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO COURT REQUEST - COURT NOT INTERESTED IN GAO RECONSIDERATION DIGEST: WHERE GAO DECIDES PROTEST IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, RECONSIDERATION REQUEST FILED BY CONTRACTING AGENCY IS DISMISSED-- WITHOUT CONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS-- BECAUSE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN HAVING GAO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION.
MONTEREY CITY DISPOSAL SERVICE INC.-- RECONSIDERATION:
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (NAVY) REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION IN MONTEREY CITY DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., B-218624, ET AL., SEPT. 3, 1985, 64 COMP.GEN. ---, 85-2 CPD PARA. ---. THE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO A JUNE 24, 1985, INTERIM ORDER FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE (DISTRICT COURT) IN CONNECTION WITH GARY PAROLA AND MONTEREY CITY DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. V. CASPAR WEINBERGER, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. C 85-20303 WAI.
OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. PART 21 (1985), REQUIRE THE DISMISSAL OF ANY PROTEST WHERE THE MATTER INVOLVED IS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE COURT REQUESTS A DECISION BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, OR WHERE THE MATTER INVOLVED HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.9 (1985), PITNEY BOWES, INC., B-218241, JUNE 18, 1985, 64 COMP.GEN. ---, 85-1 CPD PARA. 696. MOREOVER, IT HAS LONG BEEN THE POLICY OF OUR OFFICE NOT TO DECIDE SUCH MATTERS WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED IN THE CONTEXT OF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN HAVING US RECONSIDER OUR DECISION. SEE SEA LAND SERVICE, B-192149, OCT. 16, 1978, 78-2 CPD PARA. 278.
HERE, WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE OUR VIEWS AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT EXPECTS US TO RECONSIDER THE EARLIER DECISION. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESSION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT THAT WE RECONSIDER THE MATTER, THE NAVY'S RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DISMISSED.