About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-265662.2 1 (1996-03-28)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptadsm0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision Matter of: Liebig International, Inc.; Defense Logistics Agency--Reconsideration File: B-265662.2; B-265662.3 Date: March 28, 1996 Hiltrud J. McInturff, Liebig International, Inc., and Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the requesters. Alison L. Doyle, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Hilti, Inc., an interested party. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Requests for reconsideration purporting to demonstrate equivalency of alternate expansion shield to brand name expansion shield in terms of clamping capability and dynamic performance are denied where basis for initial decision sustaining protest of award to offeror of alternate part was not that alternate part was inferior to brand name part with regard to these attributes, but rather that the agency had not sought to determine the equivalency of the two parts in these two areas, and in fact had overstated its needs by not advising offerors that complete equivalency to brand name item was not required. DECISION Liebig International, Inc. and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) request reconsideration of our decision Hilti, Inc., B-265662, Dec. 19, 1995, 95-2 CPD 275, in which we sustained Hilti's protest against DLA's award of a contract for expansion shields to Liebig under request for proposals No. SPO500-95-R-0100. Both parties argue that we overlooked evidence in the record which demonstrates that the Liebig part offered is at least the equivalent of the specified brand name Hilti part. We deny the requests for reconsideration. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must either show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a) (1995). Neither repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest nor mere disagreement with our decision meets this standard. Dictaphone Cor.--Recon., B-244691.3, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD 2. Nor will we consider arguments that could have been, but were not, raised 201327

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:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most