B-225656.2, FEB 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD 193
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - BID PROTEST - GAO PROCEDURES - GAO DECISIONS - RECONSIDERATION - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DIGEST: RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DISMISSED WHERE REQUEST MERELY PROVIDES UNTIMELY DETAILS MISSING FROM ORIGINAL PROTEST. WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR ABSENCE OF DETAILED PROTEST GROUNDS. M-1'S ORIGINAL PROTEST SUBMISSION SETS FORTH THE SINGLE ALLEGATION THAT "EXCESSIVE FAVORITISM" WAS ACCORDED THE AWARDEE DURING "SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. " AND INDICATED THAT "THE VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR THIS PROTEST WILL BE SPELLED OUT IN DETAIL.". AS NO DETAILS WERE FORTHCOMING AND THE PROTEST INCLUDED NO DOCUMENTATION SETTING FORTH THE FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASES FOR THE FAVORITISM ALLEGATION. OUR OFFICE WILL ENTERTAIN A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PRIOR DECISION ONLY WHERE THE PROTESTER PRESENTS INFORMATION CHALLENGING THE PRIOR DECISION AS LEGALLY ERRONEOUS OR FOR FAILING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL FACTS PRESENTED. 4 C.F.R.
B-225656.2, FEB 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD 193
PROCUREMENT - BID PROTEST - GAO PROCEDURES - GAO DECISIONS - RECONSIDERATION - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DIGEST: RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DISMISSED WHERE REQUEST MERELY PROVIDES UNTIMELY DETAILS MISSING FROM ORIGINAL PROTEST, WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR ABSENCE OF DETAILED PROTEST GROUNDS, AND DOES NOT CHALLENGE DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL PROTEST ON LEGAL OR FACTUAL GROUNDS.
M-1, INC.-- RECONSIDERATION REQUEST:
M-1, INC., REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR JANUARY 28, 1987, DISMISSAL OF ITS PROTEST CHALLENGING A CONTRACT AWARD UNDER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. DAEA26-86-R-0012 FOR ADA LANGUAGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT. WE DISMISS THE REQUEST.
M-1'S ORIGINAL PROTEST SUBMISSION SETS FORTH THE SINGLE ALLEGATION THAT "EXCESSIVE FAVORITISM" WAS ACCORDED THE AWARDEE DURING "SECRET NEGOTIATIONS," AND INDICATED THAT "THE VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR THIS PROTEST WILL BE SPELLED OUT IN DETAIL." AS NO DETAILS WERE FORTHCOMING AND THE PROTEST INCLUDED NO DOCUMENTATION SETTING FORTH THE FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASES FOR THE FAVORITISM ALLEGATION, WE DISMISSED M-1'S PROTEST FOR FAILURE TO SET FORTH A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS OF PROTEST, INCLUDING RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY OUR BID PROTEST REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.1(F) (1986).
M-1'S RECONSIDERATION REQUEST ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES DETAILS TO THE ORIGINAL PROTEST, AND ASKS THAT WE RECONSIDER THE PROTEST BASED ON THESE DETAILS. OUR OFFICE WILL ENTERTAIN A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PRIOR DECISION ONLY WHERE THE PROTESTER PRESENTS INFORMATION CHALLENGING THE PRIOR DECISION AS LEGALLY ERRONEOUS OR FOR FAILING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL FACTS PRESENTED. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.12(A). AS M 1'S REQUEST BASED ON NEW DETAILS DOES NOT CHALLENGE OUR PRIOR DISMISSAL ON LEGAL OR FACTUAL GROUNDS, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE REQUEST. SEE GTC GROUP-- RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, B-218447.5, JULY 9, 1986, 86-2 CPD PARA. 46.
ALSO, SINCE THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, WHICH THE RECORD SHOWS WAS MORE THAN 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER M-1 KNEW THE BASIS FOR THE PROTEST, THE DETAILS PRESENTED WOULD BE UNTIMELY FILED FOR PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING THEM AS A NEW PROTEST. 4 C.F.R. SEC. 21.2(A)(2).
M-1'S RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS DISMISSED.