BNUMBER:  B-265631.2
DATE:  May 9, 1996
TITLE:  The Fantozzi Company--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:The Fantozzi Company--Reconsideration

File:     B-265631.2

Date:May 9, 1996

Mark W. Fantozzi for the protester.
Behn Miller, 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 protester essentially 
repeats arguments made during consideration of protest and expresses 
disagreement with prior decision but fails to show that the prior 
decision contained errors of fact or law or to present information not 
previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the 
decision.

DECISION

The Fantozzi Company requests reconsideration of our decision, The 
Fantozzi Co., B-265631, Dec. 12, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  255, in which we 
denied its protest challenging the exclusion of the firm from further 
consideration under solicitation No. DTCG88-95-R-623A78, issued by the 
United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, for 
inspection and maintenance work on LORAN towers and antennae located 
in the states of Washington, Montana, California, and Nevada.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The tower/antenna inspection and maintenance work being procured was 
classified as architect-engineering (A-E) services and, as such, was 
acquired by synopsizing the evaluation criteria in the Commerce 
Business Daily and evaluating each offeror's completed standard form 
(SF) 254 (A-E and Related Services Questionnaire, see Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  53.301-254) and SF 255 (A-E and Related 
Services for Specific Project Questionnaire, see FAR  sec.  53.301-255), in 
accordance with the selection procedures set forth in the Brooks Act, 
40 U.S.C.  sec.  541 et seq. (1994), and the implementing provisions of 
FAR subpart 36.6.

In its protest, Fantozzi challenged the rejection of its proposal, 
arguing that it was qualified to perform the required services and 
that the agency had improperly failed to equitably distribute its A-E 
services awards.  Specifically, Fantozzi contended that the agency 
improperly refused to consider firms--like the protester--that have 
less experience working with the agency on tower systems contracts of 
the type required here than do other firms.

We denied Fantozzi's protest since the record showed that the majority 
of firms that competed for this requirement were more qualified in the 
specific tower experience and personnel sought by the synopsis.  
Although Fantozzi contended that the work was not being "equitably 
distributed," we noted that since equitable distribution was not one 
of the evaluation criteria for this procurement, the agency was not 
barred from selecting firms who were more qualified than Fantozzi 
based on that experience.

In its request for reconsideration, the protester contends that it 
should not have been excluded from the competition because even though 
it may have less experience in the specialized areas called for here, 
it nonetheless is capable of providing the same services offered by 
more experienced firms.  With respect to the conclusion in our prior 
decision that Fantozzi's proposed "tower specialists" were not 
identified as registered professional engineers, the protester argues 
that it was under no obligation to propose registered engineers 
because the synopsis did not identify this as a requirement for 
successful performance; additionally, the protester contends that our 
Office overlooked the fact that two of its proposed "tower 
specialists" were listed on its SF 255 as registered engineers.

While it is true that the synopsis did not specifically require 
offerors to propose registered engineers for the required services, 
the synopsis nonetheless made it clear to all offerors that the agency 
was seeking the most highly qualified professionals to perform the 
required tasks.  The synopsis provided that firms would be evaluated 
against seven technical criteria listed "in relative order of 
importance" and that the most important criterion was "[s]pecialized 
recent experience and technical competence of particular staff members 
in climbing and inspecting tower systems, surveying, and engineering 
analysis."  Given that technical expertise was the most important 
technical consideration, we think it was clear--and a reasonable 
evaluation judgment on the agency's part--that an offeror proposing 
registered engineers would receive a higher technical score than an 
offeror that did not.  While Fantozzi correctly points out that two of 
its staff were listed as registered engineers, these individuals were 
not identified by Fantozzi as the two primary tower specialists on its 
SF 255; instead, their primary assignments were listed as "Project 
Manager" and "Project Engineer."  In contrast, neither of the two 
designated primary tower specialists was a registered engineer.  
Moreover, Fantozzi's proposed candidates did not demonstrate the range 
of credentials and experience which were evident from the submissions 
of the three firms ultimately selected for the agency's negotiation 
short list.

Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a party requesting 
reconsideration show that our prior decision contains either 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) (1996).  Repetition of arguments made during the original 
protest--such as Fantozzi's contention that equitable distribution 
should have been a consideration in the agency's award process--or 
mere disagreement with our decision--e.g., Fantozzi's contention that 
it was equally qualified to perform the required tasks--does not 
constitute a valid basis for reconsideration.  Varec N.V.--Recon., 
B-247363.7, Mar. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  259.  Here, Fantozzi has not 
presented any new facts, evidence, or arguments that were not already 
considered in our prior decision; under these circumstances, we have 
no basis to reconsider our prior decision.  Tower Corp.--Recon., 
B-254761.4, July 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  5.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States