The Navy and two firms requested reconsideration of a sustained protest against a Navy contract award for computer equipment. GAO had held that the Navy improperly ignored certain characteristics of the protester's brand-name products and awarded the contract to another firm. GAO had also recommended that the Navy resolicit for the required products. The Navy requested that GAO reconsider the recommendation that it terminate the contract. The first requester alleged that GAO: (1) incorrectly concluded that its equipment failed to comply with the solicitation specifications; (2) erroneously ignored the absence of prejudice to the original protester; and (3) prematurely accepted the original protester's contention that there were many manufacturers who offered less expensive units that were functionally similar to the first requester's computer equipment. The second protester also requested reconsideration. GAO held that: (1) it would modify the recommendation to postpone termination of the contract until a reprocurement was completed; (2) the first requester merely reiterated arguments it presented in its response to the original protest and failed to show any legal or factual error in the decision; and (3) the second requester was not eligible to seek reconsideration since it did not participate in the initial protest. Accordingly, the original decision was affirmed, the second requester's request was dismissed, and the recommendation was modified.
Skip to Highlights