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/gaobadkjf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
I I, 0
FILE;
M ATTER OF
THEMI 13 MROLLER 4!AR'AL
Ofl TI-lW UNITQE.) t'ATI EJ
Wa 5HFIN GT9VNW0 0 .0 , 20540
B- 205610.2
londcn Fog
DATIE; tune 8, 1982
Company-RoccI
=11.
nsideration
Prior decision holding that pro,ester had
not carried burden of pr-oving that
specificattons 1-yere overly restrictive
and that vcontracting agency's technical
experts' justifications therefor were
unreasonable is affirmed, Requeslt for
reconsideration is essentitlly a restate-
ment of arcjments previously made in t
original protest and not evidence of any
factual or legal errors in the prior
decision.
London Foq! company requets recQnsideration of
our decision in London Fog Company, .If-205610, May 4,
1982, 82-1 CPD , iII wich we deniiido its protest,
London Fog had protested that invitation for bids
Not DLA700-82-B-0313, issued by the Defense Construc-
tion Supply Center for the procurement of Insectliddal
fog generators, overstated the agency's minimum neuds
and, therefore, was dlnduly reLtrictive of competition.
The facts and legal arguments were set forth in deail
in the earlier decision and, therefore, will not b,
repeated here.
in our previous decision on this matter, we
held that the contracting agency, which is primarily
responsible for determining its minimum needs, had
made a jrima facie showing that the protested specifr-
cations were reasonably related to its needs. Even
though the protester had provided our Office with
experts' opinionri to tsupport some of its argument, we
held that the contriacting agency's technical experts'
justifications for the specifications had not been
shown to be unreasonable and that London Fog had not
curried its burden of affirmatively proving its case.
'' *1
Ii, 1 FP V
|
: kj 1)1
*, ci]
* I
* . I
.4.
.1
'1's
I.
99
/ I
~1
/9* 1
if. I
~( I
I f, r, r,
.... I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadkjf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)