About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-229710.2,B-229719.2,B-229720.2 1 (1988-03-03)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadnad0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 

%A.       The Comptroller General
          of the United States
          Washington, D.C. 20548
          Decision




          Matter of-    APAC-Tennessee, Inc.--Reconsideration

          File:         B-229710.2, B-229719.2, B-229720.2

          Date:         March 3, 1988


          DIGEST

          Requests for reconsideration are denied where protester
          fails to demonstrate factual or legal error or provide any
          information not previously considered, but only reiterates
          arguments considered in the initial protests.


          DECISION

          APAC-Tennessee, Inc., requests reconsideration of our
          decision in APAC-Tennessee, Inc., B-229710, B-229719,
          B-229720, Feb. 8, 1988, 88-1 CPD I     . In that decision
          we denied APAC's protests of the issuance, by the Army Corps
          of Engineers, of invitation for bids Nos. DACW38-88-
          B-0002, DACW29-88-B-0007, and DACW38-88-B-0001 as total
          small business set-asides. The solicitations called for
          articulated concrete mattresses to be cast along the banks
          of the Mississippi River at Vidalia, Louisiana,
          St. Francisville, Louisiana, and Greenville, Mississippi,
          respectively.

          We deny the requests for reconsideration.

          In the previous protests APAC alleged that over the past 2
          to 4 years, an award pattern had developed among three
          bidding firms with respect to the three annual contracts
          which were the subject of the protests. APAC maintained
          that because each of the firms had been awarded the contract
          for work at a particular location for 2 or more years, the
          contracting officer had no reasonable expectation of
          receiving more than one low bid from the three firms and,
          therefore, restriction of the solicitations to small
          businesses was improper under the Federal Acquisition
          Regulation (FAR) S 19.502-2 (FAC 84-31).

          Noting that only one large business--APAC--participated in
          the competition when one of the three solicitations was
          issued on an unrestricted basis, we found that APAC's
          protest was without merit in view of the fact that: (1) in
          immediately preceding acquisitions of concrete mattresses,


                                    C0J4 I - !I

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most