Skip to Highlights
Highlights

Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester fails to show any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of prior decision. The solicitation was subject to the 10 percent preference established by the Department of Defense (DOD) Regulations which were issued to implement section 107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year (FY) 1987. We denied the protest on the ground that it was reasonable. To limit the application of the preference factor to those portions of the contract which were actually priced by the offerors. Is inadequate to override what the protester considers a clear congressional mandate. We specifically found in our previous decision that the application of the SDB preference only to the adjustment factors was a reasonable interpretation of the DOD Regulations and congressional intent.

View Decision

B-237264.2, Apr 18, 1990

Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where protester fails to show any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of prior decision.

Attorneys

Hudson Bay Natural Gas Corporation-- Request for Reconsideration:

Hudson Bay Natural Gas Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision Hudson Bay Natural Gas Corporation, B-237264, Feb. 5, 1990, 69 Comp.Gen., 90-1 CPD Para. 151, wherein we denied Hudson Bay's protest that the Air Force improperly applied the small disadvantaged business (SDB) evaluation preference set forth in the request for proposals (RFP) No. F23606-89-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Air Force for natural gas for both Whiteman and McConnell Air Force Bases.

We deny the request.

The solicitation was subject to the 10 percent preference established by the Department of Defense (DOD) Regulations which were issued to implement section 107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year (FY) 1987, Pub. L. No. 99-661, 100 Stat. 3978 (1986), and section 806 of the Defense Authorization Act for FYs 1988 and 1989, Pub. L. No. 100-180, 100 Stat. 1020, 1126 (1987). Hudson Bay contended that the Air Force contravened Congress's intent as expressed in these laws by applying the 10 percent preference only to the cost adjustment factors rather than to the total estimated contract cost, which included the index price of the natural gas. We denied the protest on the ground that it was reasonable, in the context of a contract which incorporated index pricing, to limit the application of the preference factor to those portions of the contract which were actually priced by the offerors, and for which the amount paid did not fluctuate.

In its request for reconsideration, Hudson Bay again argues that the Air Force's application of the SDB preference only to the adjustment factors contravenes congressional intent. Again, specifically, Hudson Bay contends that the Air Force's asserted justification for its method of application, that of administrative convenience, is inadequate to override what the protester considers a clear congressional mandate.

Hudson Bay's reconsideration request merely reiterates contentions previously raised and considered in our prior decision. As indicated, we specifically found in our previous decision that the application of the SDB preference only to the adjustment factors was a reasonable interpretation of the DOD Regulations and congressional intent. Hudson Bay's mere disagreement with our previous decision and reassertion of its prior position does not constitute evidence off actual or legal error in our decision, and thus does not warrant reconsidering this matter. Roth Bros., Inc.-- Reconsideration, B-235539.2, Sept. 15, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 233.

Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.

GAO Contacts