BNUMBER:  B-265662.2; B-265662.3
DATE:  March 28, 1996
TITLE:  Liebig International, Inc.; Defense Logistics
Agency--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Liebig International, Inc.; Defense Logistics 
          Agency--Reconsideration

File:     B-265662.2; B-265662.3

Date:March 28, 1996

Hiltrud J. McInturff, Liebig International, Inc., and Robert L. 
Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the requesters.
Alison L. Doyle, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Hilti, Inc., 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

Requests for reconsideration purporting to demonstrate equivalency of 
alternate expansion shield to brand name expansion shield in terms of 
clamping capability and dynamic performance are denied where basis for 
initial decision sustaining protest of award to offeror of alternate 
part was not that alternate part was inferior to brand name part with 
regard to these attributes, but rather that the agency had not sought 
to determine the equivalency of the two parts in these two areas, and 
in fact had overstated its needs by not advising offerors that 
complete equivalency to brand name item was not required.

DECISION

Liebig International, Inc. and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
request reconsideration of our decision Hilti, Inc., B-265662, Dec. 
19, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  275, in which we sustained Hilti's protest 
against DLA's award of a contract for expansion shields to Liebig 
under request for proposals No. SPO500-95-R-0100.  Both parties argue 
that we overlooked evidence in the record which demonstrates that the 
Liebig part offered is at least the equivalent of the specified brand 
name Hilti part.

We deny the requests 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.  21.14(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.  Neither of the requests here 
meets the standard for reconsideration of our decision.

In citing evidence purporting to demonstrate that Liebig part No. LAH 
34.558 was at least the equivalent of Hilti part No. HSL M12/50 in 
terms of clamping capability and dynamic performance, both requesters 
misconstrue the basis for our original holding.  We did not find that 
the Liebig part was inferior to the Hilti part with regard to the 
aforementioned attributes; we found that the agency--by its own 
admission--had not sought to determine the equivalency of the two 
parts in these two areas.[1]  We noted that the agency's justification 
for failing to examine whether the Liebig part was equivalent to the 
Hilti part in terms of clamping capability and dynamic performance was 
that these were not significant attributes for purposes of the 
intended application, runway repair.  We concluded that it was 
improper for an agency that had specified that it would consider only 
items physically, mechanically, electrically, and functionally 
interchangeable with the product identified in the solicitation, i.e., 
the Hilti part, to accept an item that it had not determined to be 
interchangeable with the named product in all respects.  We further 
concluded that by asking for an item interchangeable with a named 
product when it did not really require an item with all of the 
characteristics of the named item, the agency had overstated its 
needs.  None of the information cited by either of the parties in 
their requests for reconsideration alters the foregoing conclusions.

DLA further argues that we erred in concluding that Hilti might have 
been prejudiced by the agency's overstatement of its needs.  The 
agency maintains that an anchor from Hilti's lower-priced KwikBolt 
line--which Hilti claimed it could have offered had it realized that 
the agency did not require an anchor with the dynamic performance and 
clamping capabilities of its part No. HSL M12/50--would not meet its 
minimum needs since the KwikBolt is a stud head (as opposed to an 
anchor head) bolt, and stud heads have a greater tendency to puncture 
aircraft tires.  The agency also notes that it requires "heavy duty" 
anchors, while the KwikBolt is merely "medium duty."

DLA never advised us during our consideration of the protest that the 
type of head on the bolt was significant for purposes of its intended 
application.[2]  Since this argument could have been, but was not, 
raised during the protest, it does not provide a basis for 
reconsideration of our decision.  Id.  Further, although Hilti labels 
the KwikBolt a "medium duty," as opposed to a "heavy duty," bolt, the 
bolt has--according to Hilti--tensile and shear capabilities in excess 
of the minimums defined by the agency; thus, we do not see the 
significance of the difference in nomenclature used by DLA.  

The requests for reconsideration are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Hilti and Liebig submitted conflicting evidence regarding the 
alleged equivalency of parts with respect to the clamping capability 
and dynamic performance attributes.  We did not resolve this dispute 
because the agency had not sought to do so.

2. Indeed, as we noted in our decision, DLA never established that 
runway repair was the application intended by the activities 
requisitioning the bolts; it merely indicated that it had surmised 
that this was the intended application since it was the only 
application of which its contracting personnel were aware.