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/gaobadlgr0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE IOMPTROLLER OENERAL
DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES
eW ASHINGTON 0. C. 20548
FILE: B-209.D DATE: August 23, 1983
MATTER OF: Pettibone Texas Corporation--
Reconsideration
DIGEST:
GAO affirms prior decision where
reconsideration request does not show
that the decision was erroneous.
Pettibone Texas Corporation (Pettibone) requests
reconsideration of our decision in Pettibone Texas
Corporation, B-209910, June 13, 1983, 83-1 CPD 649.
Our decision denied the company's protest against the
rejection of its proposal as outside the competitive
range under Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
request for proposals No. DTFR54-82-R-00050 for the
purchase of two container and trailer handling
vehicles.
We affirm our decision of June 13, 1983.
In that decision, we held that Pettibone's
proposal was properly rejected ultimately as outside
the competitive range because Pettibone failed to pro-
vide an adequate description of its vehicle's alleged
bottom lift capability--a capability required by the
specifications. We found that the FRA did not act
unreasonably in excluding Pettibone's proposal from
the competitive range because the bottom lift capabil-
ity was absolutely required and Pettibone did no more
than state its intention to provide this feature even
after being asked to provide a more complete
description.
Pettibone argues that the record demonstrates
that the FRA always deemed its proposal to be within
the competitive range. Specifically, Pettibone notes
that: (1) Pettibone's initial proposal was not
formally determined to be noncompetitive although FRA
argues that the proposal could and perhaps should
have been [so] determined; (2) its proposal was
numerically scored although other clearly noncompeti-
tive proposals were not numerically scored; and
(3) the company was never informed that its proposal
had been determined to be noncompetitive.
(5)QL L q](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadlgr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)