Matter of: National Mailing Systems-- Reconsideration File: B-250441.2 Date: June 28, 1993

Matter of: National Mailing Systems-- Reconsideration File: B-250441.2 Date: June 28, 1993

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures GAO decisions Reconsideration

Attorneys

DIGEST

DECISION National Mailing Systems (NMS) requests reconsideration of our decision, National Mailing Systems, B-250441, Jan. 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 75, in which we denied NMS's protest against the issuance of purchase order No. M00027-92-F-1361 to Pitney Bowes, Inc. (PBI) by the Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, for two mailing machines.

We deny the request.

NMS argued that the purchase order--placed under PBI's federal supply schedule (FSS) contract--was improper, since NMS could provide a mailing system made by Ascom Hasler at a lower price. We denied the protest on the ground that the Corps had purchased PBI's higher-priced equipment because only the PBI machine had two features that it required: (1) Weigh on the Way (WOW), which allows the user to weigh and post articles at the same time, without regard to size, at a fast rate; and (2) the capability to produce monthly reports that the agency was required to present. The protester did not dispute the Corps' requirement for these capabilities, or assert that PBI's system did not possess them; did not assert that its own equipment possessed these capabilities, but merely made a general assertion that it would meet the government's needs; and did not dispute the agency's report that, when contacted by the Corps prior to the award to PBI, NMS stated that it could not furnish a machine similar to PBI's. Based on these considerations, we concluded that the Corps properly had determined that only PBI's system satisfied the government's minimum needs.

In its request for reconsideration, NMS does not dispute the above facts, as set forth in our prior decision; instead, NMS argues for the first time that its equipment meets the Corps' requirements and PBI's does not.

In order to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must present a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1993). In order to provide a basis for reconsideration, information not previously considered must have been unavailable to the party seeking reconsideration when the initial protest was being considered. Ford Contracting Co.--Recon., B-248007.3; B-248007.4, Feb. 2, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 90; Norfolk Dredging Co.--Recon., B-236259.2, Oct. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 405. A party's failure to make all arguments or submit all information available during the course of the initial protest undermines the goal of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of the parties' arguments on a fully-developed record--and cannot justify reconsideration of our prior decision. Department of the Army--Recon., B-237742.2, June 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 546.

As noted, NMS has not alleged that our conclusions were based on any error of fact or law, and has not presented any information that would warrant reconsidering those conclusions, other than the mere assertion that its product meets the agency's needs and PBI's does not. Since NMS could have raised this argument in the course of the initial protest but did not--a fact set forth in our decision and still not disputed by NMS-- the argument cannot justify reconsideration of our prior decision. Department of the Army--Recon., supra.

Finally, NMS asserts that the Corps did not advertise the intended procurement and that, while our decision referred to NMS as a non-FSS vendor, NMS was in fact an agent for Ascom Hasler, which was an FSS vendor. These statements were part of the protest record and, as such, were considered in the course of the protest; we did not specifically refer to them in our prior decision because they were irrelevant. As explained above, in connection with the FSS procurement, the Corps specifically asked NMS whether its Ascom Hasler equipment could meet the agency's needs; the agency clearly acknowledged, therefore, that Ascom Hasler equipment that met its needs would be suitable for purchase from the FSS. It was not a lack of opportunity to compete, but NMS's response to the Corps that its equipment did not meet the agency's needs, that led to the selection of PBI's equipment. In that regard, since the Corps provided NMS an opportunity to compete, any failure on the part of the agency to advertise the procurement did not prejudice NMS. IDG Architects, 68 Comp.Gen. 683 (1989), 89-2 CPD Para. 236. Accordingly, NMS's repetition of these assertions provides no basis for reconsidering our prior decision. Ford Contracting Co.--Recon., supra.

The request for reconsideration is denied.