HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadkev0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
444
AmTHE OP OLO OEA
DECISION I OF TNH UNITED S3TATES
WASHINGTON, DC. C 20540
FILE: B-205131. DATE: April 5, ..982
MATTER OF: McCotter Motors, Inc. -- Reconsideration
DIGEBT:
Request for reconsideration is denied
where the protester does not show that
the prior decision was based on an
error of law or fact.
McCotter Motors, Inc. requests that wu reconsider
our decision in McCotter Motors, Inc., B-2U5131,
October 21, 1081, 81-2 CPD 333, in which we dismissed
the firm's protest against an affirmative determina-
tion of responsibility under Air Force invitation for
bids Noe F49642-81-B-00b4. We aismissed McCotter's
original protest bucause our Office will not review
affirmative determinations of responsibility unless
fraud is alleged on the part of procuring officials or
the solicitation contains definitive responsibility
criteria which allegedly were not applied. Microsuranoc,
Inc., J-196144.2, July 6, 1979, 79-2 CPD 14. We conl-
cluded that neither exception applied to the case. The
tequest for reconsideration ostensibly contains irfor-
mation that we did not previously consider. In this
regard, our Bid Protest Procedures require that a request
for reconsideration specify any errors of law made or
* ' information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R. 2 21.9
We deny the reconsideration request.
McCotter alleged in the original protest that in
Adetermining thdt the awardee was responsible the procuring
.9]. agency improperly ignored 1) the findings in an audit
report by our Office (MASAD-81-27, July 8, 1981) which
.commented unfavorably on the awardee's past conduct with
,I respect to bidding and performing on similar contracts,
and 2) the fact that the awarJee had been debarred in
0 . the past. The request for reconsideration essentially
only repeats these same allegations, albeit in more detail,
and does not add any information to that which was already
t !, Lvailable to our office, despite McCotter's suggestion to
.'i the contrary.
S t 5](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadkev0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)