Skip to Highlights
Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where it is based on information which is inconsistent with the basis of the original protest and which the protester withheld from our Office when protest was originally filed. Was improperly set aside exclusively for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation. Curl's claimed that it was improper to restrict the solicitation for custodial and snow-removal services for a particular building located at Scott Air Force Base to SDB concerns because the custodial contract for the entire Air Force base. Previously was set aside for small business participation. We found that it was reasonable for DECCO to determine that the regulations precluding the use of an SDB set-aside.

View Decision

B-237012.2, Mar 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD 329

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where it is based on information which is inconsistent with the basis of the original protest and which the protester withheld from our Office when protest was originally filed.

Attorneys

Curl's Building Maintenance, Inc.-- Request for Reconsideration:

Curl's Building Maintenance, Inc., requests reconsideration of our decision, in Curl's Bldg. Maintenance, B-237012, Dec. 1, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 509. In that decision we denied Curl's protest that invitation for bids (IFB) No. DCA200-89-B-0009, issued by the Defense Commercial Communications Office (DECCO), was improperly set aside exclusively for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation, and dismissed Curl's protest that it had been improperly excluded from the competition. deny the request for reconsideration.

In its original protest, Curl's claimed that it was improper to restrict the solicitation for custodial and snow-removal services for a particular building located at Scott Air Force Base to SDB concerns because the custodial contract for the entire Air Force base, which had been issued by the Air Force and had included this building in the past, previously was set aside for small business participation. We found that it was reasonable for DECCO to determine that the regulations precluding the use of an SDB set-aside, where the requirement had previously been successfully acquired under a small business set-aside, did not apply because the procurement represented a first-time acquisition by DECCO.

Having found the set-aside proper, we dismissed the remaining issues raised in Curl's protest, since it was apparent from Curl's objections to the SDB set-aside that Curl's was ineligible for award under an SDB set- aside.

In its request for reconsideration, Curl's argues that it is, in fact, an SDB. The standard for reconsideration is that a requesting party must show that our prior decision contains either an error of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (l989); I.T.S. Corp.-- Reconsideration, B-228919.2, Feb. 2, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 101. Our Bid Protest Regulations are designed to give protesters and interested parties an opportunity to present their cases with the least disruption possible to the orderly and expeditious process of government procurements. Dynalectron Corp., 65 Comp.Gen. 93 (1985), 85-2 CPD Para. 634. Hence, we do not permit a piecemeal presentation of evidence, information or analysis. Inter-Continental Equip., Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-230266.3, Apr. 3, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 343.

Here, the protester's assertion, for the first time in its reconsideration, that it could compete under an SDB set-aside is inconsistent with the stated basis for its original protest. Furthermore, during the initial protest, when asked whether Curl's was an SDB, Curl's counsel declined to respond conclusively. Parties that withhold or fail to submit all relevant evidence, information or analysis for our initial consideration, hoping that we will draw conclusions favorable to their position, do so at their own peril. See Dept. of the Navy-- Reconsideration, B-229491.2, May 9, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 445.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

GAO Contacts