A firm requested reconsideration of its denied protest against an Army order for microfilm equipment. GAO had held that the Army properly found the awardee's equipment functionally equivalent to the brand-name equipment. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that the Army improperly omitted a component from its published list of equipment under the schedule contract. GAO held that the: (1) Army's failure to include the component did not prejudice the protester; and (2) protester failed to show any error of fact or law in the original decision. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was denied.
Skip to Highlights