B-232432.2, Sep 30, 1988
Highlights
Where a party submits in its request for reconsideration an argument that it could have presented at the time of protest. The Army and subsequently the SBA found Pye & Hogan nonresponsible because it was not in compliance with the quality requirements of the solicitation and had been issued a method "C" quality deficiency report. We dismissed the protest because our Office generally does not review such matters unless the protester can show either that government officials may have acted fraudulently or in bad faith or that SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on the firm's responsibility. None of these exceptions were alleged by the protester. A party submits in its request for reconsideration an argument that it could have presented at the time of the protest.
B-232432.2, Sep 30, 1988
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: The General Accounting Office Bid Protest Regulations do not permit a piecemeal presentation of evidence, information or analysis. Where a party submits in its request for reconsideration an argument that it could have presented at the time of protest, but did not, the argument does not provide a basis for reconsideration.
Pye & Hogan Machine Company-- Request for Reconsideration:
Pye & Hogan Machine Company requests that we reconsider our August 30, 1988, dismissal of its protest against the contracting officer's determination of nonresponsibility and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) subsequent refusal to issue a certificate of competency (COC).
The Army and subsequently the SBA found Pye & Hogan nonresponsible because it was not in compliance with the quality requirements of the solicitation and had been issued a method "C" quality deficiency report. Pye & Hogan challenged the validity of these reasons in its protest to our Office. We dismissed the protest because our Office generally does not review such matters unless the protester can show either that government officials may have acted fraudulently or in bad faith or that SBA failed to consider vital information bearing on the firm's responsibility. Aquasciences International, Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-225452.2, Feb. 5, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 127. None of these exceptions were alleged by the protester.
In its request for reconsideration, Pye & Hogan argues for the first time that SBA acted in bad faith and did not consider vital information bearing on the firm's responsibility, e.g. its positive quality record on other procurements. Our Bid Protest Regulations, however, do not permit a piecemeal presentation of evidence, information or analysis. Where, as here, a party submits in its request for reconsideration an argument that it could have presented at the time of the protest, but did not, the argument does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Inter-Continental Equipment, Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-230266.3, Apr. 6, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 343.
The dismissal is affirmed.