United Mondialpol International S.r.l.; Department of

United Mondialpol International S.r.l.; Department of BNUMBER: B-251398.3; B-251398.4 DATE: May 21, 1996 TITLE: United Mondialpol International S.r.l.; Department of State-- Reconsideration ********************************************************************** Matter of:United Mondialpol International S.r.l.; Department of State-- Reconsideration File: B-251398.3; B-251398.4 Date:May 21, 1996 Robert E. Deso, Esq., Deso, Thomas, Spevack, Weitzman & Rost, P.C., for United Mondialpol International, S.r.l., and Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., for the Department of State, the parties requesting reconsideration. Richard J. Webber, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Wackenhut International, Inc./Instituto di Vigilanza Citta' di Roma S.r.l. (Metronotte), a Joint Venture, an interested party. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Request for reconsideration is denied where based on arguments that could have been raised during the initial protest. 2. Request for reconsideration based on argument that General Accounting Office improperly substituted its judgment for that of the procuring agency is denied; conclusion that the agency misapplied United States preference statute constituted an interpretation of the statute, not a substitution of judgment. DECISION United Mondialpol International, S.r.l. (UMI),[1] and the Department of State request reconsideration of our decision, Wackenhut Int'l, Inc./Instituto di Viglanza Citta' di Roma S.r.l. (Mettronotte)--a joint venture, B-251398.2, Jan. 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 25. In that decision, we sustained Wackenhut/Instituto's protest that the agency improperly awarded UMI a contract under solicitation No. 11/92 for security guard services at the U.S. Embassy in Rome. We deny the request. The contract was awarded to UMI based on its proposal's high total point score of 104.93. Wackenhut/Instituto's proposal received a total point score of 104.42. The scores of both offerors included 5 points for a preference given United States offerors; section 136 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1991 and 1992, as amended, 22 U.S.C. sec. 4864(c)(7) (1994), authorizes the 5-point preference for United States persons and qualified joint venture persons when competing for the award of overseas security guard services contracts. We found that UMI was not eligible for the preference as a United States person because the statute defines a United States person as one incorporated under the laws of the United States, and UMI was incorporated under Italian law. UMI was not eligible for the preference as a joint venture because, as indicated, the record showed it was an Italian corporation, not a joint venture. In any case, we concluded, even if UMI somehow could be considered a joint venture (comprised of UIIS and Mondialpol Roma, the companies which owned the shares of UMI), it nevertheless was not a joint venture eligible for the preference, since neither UIIS nor Mondialpol Roma was jointly and severally liable for performance of the contract, as required by the "Statement of Qualifications for Purposes of Obtaining Preference as a U.S. Person" included in the solicitation. (We also noted that, under Italian Law, the Liability of Shareholders--such as UIIS and Mondialpol Roma--in an S.r.l. corporation is limited to their investment in the corporation, and that the offer was not signed on behalf of UIIS or Mondialpol Roma.) Since eliminating the 5-point preference for UMI left Wackenhut/Instituto the high-scored offeror, and the award was based on the scores, we sustained the protest and recommended termination of UMI's contract and award to Wackenhut/Instituto. 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. sec. 21.12(a) (1995). Neither repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest nor mere disagreement with our decision meets this standard. Nor will we reconsider a decision based on information or arguments that could have been, but were not, presented during the initial protest. Pilkington Aerospace, Inc.--Recon., B-259173.2, May 15, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 242. UMI UMI argues that it should have been considered a United States person eligible for the preference because the chief executive officer of UIIS, a United States corporation, is also the managing director of UMI, and because UIIS is the entity actually performing the contract.