Skip to Highlights
Highlights

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where supporting arguments are based upon information which was previously available to the protester. Which provide that we will not consider a protest challenging a decision to procure under the 8(a) program absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of government officials or that specific laws or regulations have been violated. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(4) (1989). limit our review under the section 8(a) program because by the terms of the Small Business Act contracting officers are given broad discretion to let contracts to the SBA upon such terms and conditions as agreed to by the agency and the SBA. DAC alleged that there was bad faith on the part of contracting officials and that regulations had been violated.

View Decision

B-238283.2, Feb 20, 1990

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration is denied where supporting arguments are based upon information which was previously available to the protester, but not presented during consideration of the initial protest.

Attorneys

Development Assistance Corporation-- Request for Reconsideration

Development Assistance Corporation (DAC) requests reconsideration of our January 11, 1990, summary dismissal of the firm's protest against the Agency for International Development's (AID's) award of a Small Business Administration (SBA) section 8(a) program subcontract to Health Systems Marketing & Development Corporation. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(a) (1988), authorizes the SBA to enter into contracts with government agencies and to arrange for the performance of such contracts by letting subcontracts to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns.

We affirm the dismissal.

We dismissed the protest pursuant to our Bid Protest Regulations, which provide that we will not consider a protest challenging a decision to procure under the 8(a) program absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of government officials or that specific laws or regulations have been violated. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(4) (1989). limit our review under the section 8(a) program because by the terms of the Small Business Act contracting officers are given broad discretion to let contracts to the SBA upon such terms and conditions as agreed to by the agency and the SBA. See PECO Enters., Inc., 68 Comp.Gen. 130 (1988), 88-2 CPD Para. 566. In its original protest filed with our Office, DAC alleged that there was bad faith on the part of contracting officials and that regulations had been violated, but failed to identify any acts of bad faith or cite any laws or regulations which may have been violated. This broad assertion was not sufficient to invoke our review.

In its reconsideration request, DAC specifically alleges for the first time that the release of certain procurement sensitive information by a DAC competitor to a prospective 8(a) subcontractor on October 13, 1988, was prejudicial to DAC and may have resulted from bad faith on the part of AID officials and may have violated procurement integrity statutes. DAC does not indicate why the information it now presents in support of its previous arguments was not submitted in its original protest, but we will not grant a reconsideration on the basis of such previously available information; a protester who fails to submit all relevant information in its initial protest does so at its own peril, since it is not the function of this Office to investigate general allegations raised in the protest record. GMI Indus., Inc.-- Request for Recon., B-231998.2, Mar. 23, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 297. In any case, DAC's reconsideration request merely speculates that the agency might have acted improperly. There is no evidence that AID ever disclosed information to only one potential 8(a) subcontractor; indeed, DAC's own submission alleges that a competitor, not AID, disclosed the complained of information.

We affirm the dismissal.

GAO Contacts