PRC, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-274698.4, July 10, 1997

B-274698.4 Jul 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST A request for reconsideration which alleges that a prior decision denying a protest against a source selection decision was based on errors of fact and law. Is denied where the allegations are not supported by the protest record. PRC alleges that our finding was based on erroneous determinations that the development of the information management system was a "requirement" of the incumbent contract. That a showing of bad faith or an intent to harm the incumbent's competitors was required to establish an unfair competitive advantage. PRC asserts that we "should reconsider the evidence in light of whether TESCO was unintentionally given a competitive advantage.". The record showed that the competitive advantage which TESCO may have received from performing as the incumbent contractor was not an unfair competitive advantage. View Decision Matter of: PRC, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-274698.4 Date: July 10, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION PRC, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, PRC, Inc., B-274698.2; B-274698.3, Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 115, denying its protests of an award to TESCO, a joint venture, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DATM01-95-R-0019, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Operational Test and Evaluation Command (OPTEC) Contracting Activity, for test support services required by the Test and Evaluation Command, Fort Hood, Texas. We deny the request for reconsideration. In order to obtain reconsideration under our Bid Protest Regulations, 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. 21.14(a) (1997); Defense Logistics Agency; Moheat Envtl. Servs..--Recon., B-270538.5; B-270538.6, Nov. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 194 at 1. Repetition of arguments made during consideration of the original protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not provide a basis for reconsideration. R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 274 at 2. As discussed below, PRC has shown no errors of law or fact that warrant reconsideration of our prior decision. PRC first contends that our decision incorrectly found that TESCO's initiation of the development under its incumbent contract of an automated information management system for the control of government furnished property (GFP), which TESCO then proposed in response to this RFP, did not constitute an unfair competitive advantage. PRC alleges that our finding was based on erroneous determinations that the development of the information management system was a "requirement" of the incumbent contract, and that a showing of bad faith or an intent to harm the incumbent's competitors was required to establish an unfair competitive advantage. PRC asserts that we "should reconsider the evidence in light of whether TESCO was unintentionally given a competitive advantage." PRC's request regarding an unintentional competitive advantage misses the point, since, as discussed in our prior decision, the record showed that the competitive advantage which TESCO may have received from performing as the incumbent contractor was not an unfair competitive advantage. A competitive advantage of an incumbent contractor, which was gained by virtue of that contractor's performing the incumbent contract, is not an unfair or improper competitive advantage, and an agency is not required to attempt to equalize competition to compensate for that advantage unless there is evidence of preferential treatment or other improper action. Versar, Inc., B-254464.3, Feb. 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 230 at 12; Information Ventures, Inc., B-240925.2, Jan. 15, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. 39 at 3; Wismer and Becker Contracting Engineers and Synthetic Fuel Corp. of Am., A Joint Venture, B-191756, Mar. 6, 1979, 79-1 CPD Para. 148 at 14. We stated in our decision that there was no evidence in the record to show that the development of an information management system "was outside the scope of the incumbent contract." [1] The work authorization orders (WAO), issued annually at the start of each fiscal year of the contract, included requirements for record keeping and report preparation, as well as requirements for seeking and incorporating efficiencies to improve the quality and production of services. The protester does not argue that these WAOs were outside the scope of the contract. Although not stated in our decision, the terms of the WAO issued at the start of the final year (fiscal year 1996) of TESCO's incumbent contract specifically required the contractor to "[d]evelop and implement an information management system" for the control of GFP.