BNUMBER:  B-260650.3
DATE:  March 18, 1996
TITLE:  Cosmodyne, Inc.--Reconsideration

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

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Cosmodyne, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-260650.3

Date:March 18, 1996

.
Robert A. Brunette, Esq., for the requester
Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, for Pacific 
Consolidated Industries, an interested party.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., 
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of 
the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where new information presented 
does not demonstrate error in prior decision and information could 
have been, but was not, presented during initial consideration of the 
protest.

DECISION

Cosmodyne, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, Pacific 
Consolidated Indus., B-260650.2, Oct. 25, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  247, in 
which we sustained the protest of Pacific Consolidated Industries 
against the selection for award of Cosmodyne under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. N68335-95-R-0003, issued by the Department of the 
Navy for liquid oxygen/nitrogen generators capable of operating in an 
environment contaminated with nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) 
warfare agents.  Cosmodyne contends that we erred in our decision in 
finding that its generators were not adequately protected against 
chemical warfare agent contamination.  The requester maintains that 
its generators are protected against such contamination by [deleted], 
which has been recognized by the U.S. military as effective against 
chemical agent contamination.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must either show that our prior decision contains 
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).  Neither repetition of arguments made during 
our consideration of the original protest nor mere disagreement with 
our decision meets this standard.  Dictaphone Corp.--Recon., 
B-244691.3, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  2.  Nor will we consider 
arguments that could have been, 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.  Ford Contracting Co.--Recon., B-248007.3; 
B-248007.4, Feb. 2, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  90.  Cosmodyne's request does not 
meet the standard for reconsideration of our decision. 

In now attempting to demonstrate that its plant was protected against 
chemical warfare agent contamination, the requester misconstrues our 
holding.  We did not assess the adequacy of the filtration systems 
proposed by Cosmodyne to prevent NBC contamination; rather, we made a 
judgment as to the adequacy of the record supporting the evaluators' 
conclusion that Cosmodyne's proposal demonstrated compliance with the 
requirement for NBC protection.  In this regard, we noted that the 
proposal contained no technical literature, test data, or other 
information establishing the effectiveness in protecting against NBC 
contamination of the [deleted].  We further noted that the 
contemporaneous record was devoid of any discussion of either the 
requirement for NBC protection or Cosmodyne's proposed approach for 
complying with it.  We thus concluded that the agency's determination 
that Cosmodyne had demonstrated compliance with the solicitation 
requirement for NBC protection was unreasonable.

These same conclusions apply to the [deleted], which Cosmodyne now 
contends was its principal filtration system against chemical 
contamination.  There was no information in Cosmodyne's proposal 
establishing the effectiveness of [deleted] in preventing chemical 
contamination, nor was there any discussion in the contemporaneous 
record of this filtration system.  Moreover, when we specifically 
asked the agency's technical evaluators to explain their basis for 
concluding that Cosmodyne's proposed filtration systems would 
adequately protect against NBC contamination, they never mentioned the 
[deleted] and offered no discussion of their experience with it.[1]  
Any argument now purporting to establish the efficacy of the [deleted] 
provides no basis for reconsideration of our decision, since it could 
have been, but was not, raised during the protest.  Id.

Cosmodyne also objects to the discussion in our decision pertaining to 
its [deleted], arguing that we were misled by PCI into assuming that 
the [deleted].

We were not "misled" by PCI--whose technical experts did not have 
access to Cosmodyne's proposal and could therefore only speculate as 
to its contents--into assuming Cosmodyne's [deleted].  Rather, we 
noted that although Cosmodyne's proposal did not explain how the 
chemical agents [deleted], the evaluators apparently understood that 
the [deleted].  We based this observation on the fact that the agency 
described Cosmodyne's [deleted]--in response to our question  
[deleted], the Navy responded that [deleted].  (Emphasis added.)  In 
addition, when we asked the agency to comment on PCI's argument that 
the generator's use of a [deleted], the agency did not point out in 
its response that the generator did not [deleted]; it simply stated 
that it had not encountered this problem in other oxygen generating 
systems using [deleted].

Cosmodyne now argues that the reason its proposal did not explain how 
chemical agents [deleted].  Cosmodyne's proposal explicitly stated, in 
describing the [deleted].  (Emphasis added.)  In addition, the Navy 
stated, in response to a question from our Office, that it considered 
the [deleted] to be "an effective filtration system in preventing NBC 
contamination."  We think that the clear implication of these 
statements is that the [deleted].  Thus, we see no basis to conclude 
that we erred in recommending to the Navy that it reopen discussions 
with Cosmodyne regarding the functioning of the [deleted] in order to 
clarify whether it will require [deleted] to continue operating 
effectively, and, if so, how [deleted] will be accomplished.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
f:\projects\pl\2606503r.wp5

1. Although the requester insists that we only asked the technical 
evaluators about the effectiveness of the [deleted], that is simply 
not true.  We did not restrict our inquiry [deleted].  We asked the 
Navy evaluators whether they had done any sort of analysis of the 
effectiveness in preventing NBC contamination of "the filtration 
systems proposed by Cosmodyne."  We also asked them to furnish us with 
a statement explaining why they had concluded "that the Cosmodyne 
filtration systems were adequate."  In responding to our questions, 
the agency discussed only its basis for concluding that the [deleted] 
would be effective in protecting against NBC contamination.  Further, 
when PCI, in commenting on the agency response to our questions, 
construed this answer as indicating that Cosmodyne's principal 
chemical agent filtration system was the [deleted], neither the 
agency--whose engineers were not barred from reviewing protected 
submissions (as the protester maintains)--nor Cosmodyne pointed out 
any inaccuracy.