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/gaobadirw0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION 'J OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20548
FILE: B-200315.2 DATE: November 18, 1980
MATTER OF: Seacoast Trucking & Moving--Reconsideration
DIGEST:
Request for reconsideration is denied
where it fails to clearly demonstrate
either errors of fact or law in prior
decision, but rather essentially reit-
erates bases of protest and arguments
previously considered.
Seacoast Trucking & Moving requests reconsideration
of our decision in Seacoast Trucking & Moving, B-200315,
September 30, 1980, 80-2 CPD 235, in which we summarily
denied Seacoast's protest concerning the award of a
contract for refuse collection services under invitation
for bids (IFB) No. F27604-80-B-0026 issued by the Depart-
ment of the Air Force. Our prior decision upheld the
contracting officer's determination that the failure of
the low bidder to submit with its bid a detailed descrip-
tion of the equipment to be used in performing the
services did not render its bid nonresponsive.
Seacoast now requests our Office to reconsider
our decision on the grounds that the IFB specifically
required each bidder to submit definitive information
regarding [the] type and size of equipment with its
bid and that the IFB required the equipment to conform
to strict specifications. Thus, Seacoast argues, the
contract [was] for services and equipment and since
the low bidder did not have the specified equipment
at the time of bid opening, it thereby misrepresented
its ability to perform.
We find that the contentions raised by Seacoast
in the request for reconsideration go ,to the merits
of the protest and were part of the record upon which
our decis.on was based. Since Seacoast has presented
no evidence demonstrating any error of fact or law
in our decision, we find no basis to reconsider the](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadirw0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)