Department of Commerce--Reconsideration, B-277260.4, July 31,

B-277260.4 Jul 31, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision sustaining a protest of a contract award for software development is denied where the procuring agency's request fails to show that the prior decision contains any errors of fact or law or to present information not previously considered. Presents evidence that could have been. Was not. Is modified because the agency has established. The protest was sustained because the agency did not reasonably determine. That the RPS award was at a fair market price. If it was determined that the RPS contract costs exceeded a fair market price. We found that the market survey conducted by NOAA to implement the recommendation in our initial decision was not a reasonable method of determining whether the RPS award was at a fair market price because the survey included material requirements that were not included in the RPS contract. View Decision Matter of: Department of Commerce--Reconsideration File: B-277260.4 Date: July 31, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce requests reconsideration of, and/or modification of the recommendation made in, our decision, Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260.2, Mar. 25, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. 128, sustaining Techno-Sciences's protest of a market survey undertaken by NOAA to implement corrective action recommended in our decision in Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260, Sept. 22, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 115. We deny the request for reconsideration, but modify the recommendation. In Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260, supra, we sustained Techno-Sciences's protest of the award of a contract to Research and Professional Services, Inc. (RPS), negotiated through the Small Business Administration section 8(a) set-aside program under request for proposals (RFP) No. 50-DDNE-7-90034, for software development, testing and maintenance to support the United States Mission Control Center (USMCC). The protest was sustained because the agency did not reasonably determine, in accordance with applicable regulations, that the RPS award was at a fair market price, particularly given Techno-Sciences's apparently acceptable offer to perform the services at a much lower price. We recommended that the agency review its fair market price estimate, specifically considering Techno-Sciences's commercial software enhanced to meet NOAA's requirements, and if it was determined that the RPS contract costs exceeded a fair market price, that RPS's contract be terminated and the requirements fulfilled under an unrestricted procurement. We also recommended that Techno-Sciences be reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. In Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260.2, supra, we found that the market survey conducted by NOAA to implement the recommendation in our initial decision was not a reasonable method of determining whether the RPS award was at a fair market price because the survey included material requirements that were not included in the RPS contract. We again recommended that NOAA review its fair market price estimate, considering Techno-Sciences's commercial software enhanced to meet NOAA's requirements, after fairly describing to Techno-Sciences the material requirements included in RPS's contract. If it was determined that RPS's contract exceeded a fair market price, we recommended that RPS's contract be terminated and the requirements fulfilled under an unrestricted procurement. NOAA requests reconsideration of this latter decision. 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) (1998). Repetition of arguments made during consideration of the original protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not provide a basis for reconsideration. PRC, Inc.--Recon., B-274698.4, July 10, 1997, 97-2 CPD Para. 10 at 1. Nor will we consider arguments that could have been made, but were not raised during our initial consideration of the protest since to do so would undermine the goal of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of the parties' arguments on a fully developed record. Dyna-Air Eng'g Corp.--Recon., B-271587.2, Aug. 30, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 93 at 1-2. As explained below, we find that NOAA has not established a basis for reconsideration of the prior decision. For example, NOAA contends that Techno-Sciences, Inc., B-277260.2, supra, erroneously concluded that the market survey required producers of commercial USMCC software to meet requirements materially different from those being met under RPS's contract.