BNUMBER:  B-257634.4
DATE:  September 9, 1996
TITLE:  Gordon R.A. Fishman--Reconsideration

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Gordon R.A. Fishman--Reconsideration

File:     B-257634.4

Date:September 9, 1996

Neil I. Levy, Esq., Kilpatrick & Cody, for the protester.
Scott H. Riback, 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 request neither 
demonstrates that earlier decision contained errors of fact or law, 
nor presents new information that would warrant reversal or 
modification of earlier decision.

DECISION

Gordon R.A. Fishman requests reconsideration of our decision, Gordon 
R. A. Fishman, B-257634.3, Nov. 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  217, in which we 
denied Fishman's protest against the award of a lease agreement to KD 
Development under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. GS-05B-15777, 
issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for office space 
for the Internal Revenue Service in Mount Clemens, Michigan.  Fishman 
maintains that we erroneously concluded that GSA had properly found 
its offer technically unacceptable.

We deny the request.

The SFO is for the lease of approximately 10,250 net usable contiguous 
square feet of office space.  After evaluating offers, engaging in 
discussions and soliciting best and final offers (BAFO), GSA 
determined that Fishman's proposal was technically unacceptable for 
numerous reasons.  Chief among the reasons was GSA's conclusion that 
Fishman had not unequivocally offered 10,250 contiguous square feet of 
office space; a portion of Fishman's offered space (the second floor 
of its building) was subject to a preexisting lease with another 
concern, and the agency found that Fishman had failed to demonstrate 
in its proposal that this portion of the space could be made 
available.

In our decision, we agreed with GSA that Fishman's proposal did not 
unequivocally demonstrate its compliance with the contiguous space 
requirement, since the record indeed showed that a portion of the 
offered space was subject to another concern's right to occupy it 
under the terms of an earlier lease.  Although the record also showed 
that the tenant had agreed to move, this agreement was contingent upon 
the tenant's review and approval of a new lease for space elsewhere in 
the building.  We also concluded that the agency properly had found 
Fishman's offer technically unacceptable (as opposed to finding the 
firm nonresponsible), and thus was not required to refer the matter to 
the Small Business Administration under its certificate of competency 
(COC) program because of Fishman's status as a small business.  

In its request for reconsideration, Fishman maintains that we erred in 
finding that it had not met the contiguous space requirement.  
According to the protester, the preexisting lease was due to expire 
within 30 days after GSA awarded the lease to KD Development, and 
Fishman would not be required to make the space available under the 
terms of the SFO until 180 days after contract award.  Fishman 
concludes that its offer complied with the contiguous space 
requirement and thus was technically acceptable.

In order to obtain reconsideration, a requesting party must either 
show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or 
present information not previously considered that would warrant 
reversal or modification of the earlier decision; repetition of 
arguments previously made, or disagreement with the prior decision 
does not meet this standard.  Liebig Int'l, Inc.; Defense Logistics 
Agency--Recon.,   B-265662.2; B-265662.3, Mar. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
169.  Fishman's request provides no basis for our Office to reverse or 
modify our earlier decision.

Of central importance to our first decision was the fact that the 
record did not contain a complete copy of the preexisting lease; 
Fishman's offer had included only the first page of the lease, and 
Fishman did not tender a complete copy in connection with its protest.  
(Fishman still has not provided our Office a complete copy of the 
lease.)  Consequently, there was no way for us to determine the rights 
of Fishman's tenant under that lease (e.g., whether the tenant had a 
unilateral right to renew the existing lease).  Fishman has presented 
no new information relating to this question.  We therefore have no 
basis to conclude that our decision was erroneous.

Fishman also contends that we erred in determining that its failure to 
meet the contiguous space requirement was a matter of technical 
acceptability rather than responsibility.  In our decision, we 
specifically considered and rejected Fishman's contention that this 
was a matter of responsibility rather than technical acceptability; 
the contingent nature of the tenant's promise to move rendered 
Fishman's offer technically unacceptable because it brought into 
question the firm's promise (made elsewhere in its proposal) to meet 
the contiguous space requirement, a material requirement of the SFO.  
Fishman's position on reconsideration amounts to no more than a 
restatement of its earlier allegation and disagreement with our 
conclusion.  This, without more, does not form a basis for our Office 
to reconsider the protest.  Id.  

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States