Social Security Administration--Reconsideration

B-261226.2 Nov 30, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The post-award negotiation memorandum prepared by the contracting officer stating that a matter had been discussed with the protester is not controlling where it is contradicted by other evidence in the record. Including audit reports that were used as a basis for the discussions. The negotiation memorandum is an account of his recollection of events prepared several weeks after the oral discussions occurred. The agency alleges that there was no other evidence in the record. That our Office thus should have deferred to the position reflected in the negotiation memorandum. [1] However. Our decision clearly found that there was other relevant evidence in the record. Corroborated the protester's credible account that the labor hour deficiency had not been addressed. [2] To the extent that the agency argues that we should have relied upon this negotiation memorandum above all other evidence in the record. View Decision Matter of: Social Security Administration--Reconsideration File: B-261226.2 Date: November 30, 1995 For purposes of resolving a bid protest regarding the content of discussions, the post-award negotiation memorandum prepared by the contracting officer stating that a matter had been discussed with the protester is not controlling where it is contradicted by other evidence in the record, including audit reports that were used as a basis for the discussions, the letter confirming the discussions, the protester's proposal and best and final offer, and the hearing testimony. Attorneys DECISION The Social Security Administration (SSA) requests that we reconsider our decision, Integrity Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., B-261226, Sept. 1, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 98, in which we sustained the protest of Integrity International Security Services, Inc. against an award to Areawide Services, Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-95-1747, issued by SSA for armed guard services at two sites in Baltimore, Maryland. We sustained the protest on the basis that the agency had not conducted meaningful discussions with the protester--for failing to discuss a deficiency in its proposed labor rates--and recommended that the agency reopen discussions and correct its error. SSA requests reconsideration of our decision with regard to both our alleged failure to consider certain evidence in the record, and the timeliness of the protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain 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). Repetition of arguments made during consideration of the original protest and mere disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274. SSA alleges that our decision erroneously disregarded a negotiation memorandum, prepared by the contracting officer, which indicated that the agency had in fact apprised the protester of the labor rates deficiency during the final round of discussions. As discussed in our prior decision, we reviewed the entire record in reaching our decision, including the content of the negotiation memorandum. As noted in our decision, the contracting officer did not keep notes of any of his conversations with Integrity or any of the numerous offerors; the negotiation memorandum is an account of his recollection of events prepared several weeks after the oral discussions occurred. The agency alleges that there was no other evidence in the record, other than the conflicting statements of the parties, from which to draw a conclusion, and that our Office thus should have deferred to the position reflected in the negotiation memorandum. [1] However, our decision clearly found that there was other relevant evidence in the record--including the agency's audit reports of proposals and best and final offers (BAFO), the letter requesting final BAFOs, Integrity's proposal and BAFO, and the hearing testimony--and that this evidence did not support, and indeed contradicted, the contracting officer's recollection of the final round of discussions, and corroborated the protester's credible account that the labor hour deficiency had not been addressed.