About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-258537.8 1 (1995-10-31)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptabzb0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision Matter of: ASI Personnel Services, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-258537.8 Date: October 31, 1995 Howard Stanislawski, Esq., and Gary Quigley, Esq., Sidley & Austin, for the protester. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where requesting party reiterates arguments raised during the initial protest, raises arguments that could have been, but were not, raised during the initial protest, and otherwise does not demonstrate that the decision contains errors of fact or law. DECISION ASI Personnel Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, ASI Personnel Servs., Inc., B-258537.7, June 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD 44. In that decision we denied in part and dismissed in part ASI's protest against the award of a contract to Pentad Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAG60-94-R-0017, issued by the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point for mess attendant services. We deny the request. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, based on an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors that were listed in descending order of importance: management and staffing; quality control; and cost. After best and final offers were submitted and evaluated by the source selection evaluation team (SSET), the source selection authority (SSA) chose Pentad for award based on a proposal that was acceptable under each evaluation factor and was priced $800,000 lower than the most highly rated proposal. ASI protested that the agency misevaluated ASI's and Pentad's proposals and was biased against ASI. EVALUATION OF ASI'S PRICE PROPOSAL In its request for reconsideration, ASI argues that our decision ignored ASI's argument that the SSET improperly rated its price proposal as marginal. We did not 1091027