B-226059, B-226471, B-226530, MAR 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD 326
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - BID PROTESTS - GAO PROCEDURES - GAO DECISIONS - RECONSIDERATION DIGEST: PROTESTS PRESENTING THE SAME ISSUE WHICH WAS RESOLVED ADVERSELY TO THE PROTESTER IN RECENT PROTESTS UNDER DIFFERENT PROCUREMENTS ARE DENIED SINCE THE PROTESTER HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENTS OR NEW INFORMATION DISTINGUISHING ITS CURRENT PROTESTS FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND DENIED. ALLEN ARGUES THAT THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT IS COSTLY AND THUS UNDULY RESTRICTS COMPETITION FROM OUT OF STATE CONTRACTORS. THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION HERE IS THE SAME AS THAT PRESENTED AND RESOLVED ADVERSELY TO ALLEN IN SEVERAL RECENT PROTESTS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE. IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE NAVY MAY PROPERLY INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE A VALID CALIFORNIA FIRE SPRINKLER LICENSE IN THE INTEREST OF AVOIDING POSSIBLE INTERRUPTION TO CONTRACT PERFORMANCE DUE TO THE STATE'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
B-226059, B-226471, B-226530, MAR 20, 1987, 87-1 CPD 326
PROCUREMENT - BID PROTESTS - GAO PROCEDURES - GAO DECISIONS - RECONSIDERATION DIGEST: PROTESTS PRESENTING THE SAME ISSUE WHICH WAS RESOLVED ADVERSELY TO THE PROTESTER IN RECENT PROTESTS UNDER DIFFERENT PROCUREMENTS ARE DENIED SINCE THE PROTESTER HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENTS OR NEW INFORMATION DISTINGUISHING ITS CURRENT PROTESTS FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND DENIED.
H.V. ALLEN CO., INC.:
H.V. ALLEN CO., INC. PROTESTS ANY AWARD UNDER THREE SOLICITATIONS ISSUED BY THE NAVY: INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. N62474-84-B-4465 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM AT THE DEFENSE FUEL SUPPORT POINT, ESTERO BAY, CALIFORNIA; IFB NO. N62474-86-B-B418 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT THE NAVAL STATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AND IFB NO. N62474-86-B-4702 FOR MODIFICATION OF A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA. THE PROTESTER CHALLENGES AS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE THE REQUIREMENT IN EACH OF THE IFBS THAT THE CONTRACTOR POSSESS A "VALID C 16" CALIFORNIA FIRE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE. ALLEN ARGUES THAT THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT IS COSTLY AND THUS UNDULY RESTRICTS COMPETITION FROM OUT OF STATE CONTRACTORS. WE DENY THE PROTESTS.
THE PROTESTER'S ALLEGATION HERE IS THE SAME AS THAT PRESENTED AND RESOLVED ADVERSELY TO ALLEN IN SEVERAL RECENT PROTESTS FILED WITH OUR OFFICE. SPECIFICALLY, ALLEN PROTESTED THIS SAME LICENSING REQUIREMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SEVERAL OTHER NAVY PROCUREMENTS FOR VARIOUS FIRE PROTECTION/SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT FOR CALIFORNIA NAVAL AND DEFENSE LOCATIONS. SEE H.V. ALLEN CO, INC., B-225326 ET AL., MAR. 6, 1987, 87 1 CPD PARA. ***, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE NAVY MAY PROPERLY INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE A VALID CALIFORNIA FIRE SPRINKLER LICENSE IN THE INTEREST OF AVOIDING POSSIBLE INTERRUPTION TO CONTRACT PERFORMANCE DUE TO THE STATE'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT. SINCE ALLEN HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENTS OR NEW INFORMATION WHICH WOULD DISTINGUISH ITS CURRENT PROTESTS FROM THOSE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED AND DENIED, WE SEE NO REASON TO CONSIDER THE SAME PROTESTS ONCE AGAIN HERE. SEE, E.G., INDUSTRIAL DESIGN LABORATORIES, INC., B-216639, NOV. 13, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 523; CANNON U.S.A., INC., B-213554, AUG. 20, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 195; ALAN SCOTT INDUSTRIES, B-205730 ET AL., JAN. 27, 1982, 82-1 CPD PARA. 64.
WE, THEREFORE, DENY THE PROTESTS.