B-235349.2, Sep 19, 1989, 89-2 CPD 243
Highlights
Is denied. Prior decision specifically addressed the allegations and found them to have no bearing on the case. Anadigicom asserts that we failed to consider its allegation that the Army improperly received assistance from the awardee in determining that Anadigicom's bid was nonresponsive. The agency necessarily was influenced by Raven's views in determining that Anadigicom's bid was nonresponsive. We stated that the fact that Raven may have expressed to the agency its view of the responsiveness of Anadigicom's bid did not render the agency's actions improper. The only relevant consideration was that. Anadigicom's bid was in fact nonresponsive. Its request for reconsideration is denied.
B-235349.2, Sep 19, 1989, 89-2 CPD 243
PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of prior decision, on ground that the decision failed to address alleged improper communications between agency and awardee, is denied; prior decision specifically addressed the allegations and found them to have no bearing on the case.
Anadigicom Corporation -- Request for Reconsideration:
Anadigicom Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision, Anadigicom Corp., B-235349, Aug. 18, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. ***, in which we denied the firm's protest of the award of a contract to Raven Electronics Corporation, under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAC71-89 B-0002, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command, for 163 standard voice orderwire devices, used for maintenance work on communications networks. Anadigicom asserts that we failed to consider its allegation that the Army improperly received assistance from the awardee in determining that Anadigicom's bid was nonresponsive.
We deny the request for reconsideration.
As we pointed out in our prior decision, Anadigicom surmised in its protest that, because Raven had conveyed to the Army its views on whether Anadigicom's bid satisfied the IFB specifications after bid opening but prior to award, the agency necessarily was influenced by Raven's views in determining that Anadigicom's bid was nonresponsive. We found, however, no evidence that Raven had been permitted to participate in any way in the bid evaluation, or that the agency otherwise acted in bad faith in rejecting Anadigicom's bid. We stated that the fact that Raven may have expressed to the agency its view of the responsiveness of Anadigicom's bid did not render the agency's actions improper; the only relevant consideration was that, as we found in our decision, Anadigicom's bid was in fact nonresponsive.
Since Anadigicom raises no matter of law or of fact that we did not previously consider, its request for reconsideration is denied.