BNUMBER:  B-270354.3 
DATE:  June 11, 1997
TITLE: Ogden Support Services, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-270354.3,
June 11, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Ogden Support Services, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-270354.3

Date:June 11, 1997

Ronald K. Henry, Esq., and Mark A Riordan, Esq., Kaye, Scholer, 
Fierman, Hays & Handler, for the protester.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

There is no basis to reconsider a decision which had found that the 
protester was not an interested party to protest an awardee's proposal 
where the request for reconsideration does not show error in the 
decision's finding that the evaluation of the protester's proposal was 
reasonable and where the original protest did not challenge the 
evaluation of a higher-rated, lower-priced intervening proposal.

DECISION

Ogden Support Services, Inc. requests reconsideration of our decision, 
Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  135, 
denying in part and dismissing in part its protest of an award to SSI 
Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-Z06, issued by 
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain 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 our 
consideration of the original protest and mere disagreement with our 
decision do not meet this standard.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Request for 
Recon.,
B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274 at 2.

Ogden's request for reconsideration has not shown that our decision 
contained any  errors of fact or law, nor has it identified 
information not previously considered which warrants reversal or 
modification of our decision.

Ogden's original protest included allegations that the CIA evaluated 
Ogden's and SSI's proposals unreasonably and unequally.  Our decision 
reviewed Ogden's allegations concerning the CIA's evaluation of 
Ogden's proposal and found that the evaluation was reasonable.  Then, 
turning to Ogden's allegations concerning the CIA's evaluation of 
SSI's proposal, we found that Ogden was not an interested party to 
protest the evaluation of SSI's proposal because an intervening 
offeror with a higher-rated, lower-cost proposal was in line for award 
ahead of Ogden, even assuming Ogden's allegations about the evaluation 
and selection of SSI were meritorious.

Ogden's request for reconsideration does not challenge our findings 
concerning the reasonableness of the CIA's evaluation of Ogden's 
proposal, but rather alleges that we improperly failed to consider its 
allegations of unequal evaluations and improperly found Ogden not to 
be an interested party to protest the evaluation of SSI's proposal.  

The focus of Ogden's protest was that the CIA was biased in favor of 
SSI and conducted the procurement to ensure that SSI was awarded the 
contract.  The protest included numerous, detailed allegations of 
unreasonable evaluation of Ogden's and SSI's proposals, but not a 
single allegation regarding the evaluation of the other offerors.  
Indeed, Ogden consistently and quite specifically identified this area 
of its protest as allegations of the CIA's applying different 
evaluation standards "to Ogden and SSI."  Ogden's protest clearly did 
not allege that the proposals of offerors other than SSI were 
evaluated unequally in relation to each other.  In any event, even if 
Ogden had generally alleged "unequal treatment of all offerors" as it 
now contends it did, such a general allegation would be insufficient 
to constitute a protest under our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.1(c)(4) (1996). Government Technology Servs., Inc. et 
al.,B-258082.2 et al., Sept. 2, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  93 at 4-5; Federal 
Computer Int'l Corp.--Recon., B-257618.2, July 14, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  24 
at 1-2.

As stated in our prior decision, Ogden's protest characterized its 
lowest-rated, lowest-ranked proposal as technically similar to the 
proposal ranked just ahead of it.  Although that proposal had a 
slightly higher rating than Ogden's proposal, its cost was several 
million dollars lower than Ogden's.  Thus, since we found that Ogden's 
proposal was reasonably evaluated, and since the evaluation of the 
intervening proposals was not protested, the ranking of Ogden's 
proposal would not change in relation to those intervening proposals, 
even assuming as meritorious all of its allegations about the 
evaluation and selection of SSI's proposal, including those couched in 
terms of unequal treatment.  Therefore, we properly determined that 
Ogden was not an interested party to protest the evaluation of SSI's 
proposal and dismissed that portion of Ogden's protest.  See Premier 
Nurse Staffing, Inc.--Recon., B-258288.3, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  174 
at 5; Government Technology Servs., Inc. et al., supra at 4-5.

Ogden also alleges that we failed to adequately address its protest 
allegation that its final evaluation score was unreasonable because 
the score allegedly decreased from the preceding round of evaluations, 
even though the CIA stated that Ogden's proposal had improved as a 
result of discussions.  As stated in our prior decision, Ogden based 
its allegation about the total scores on arithmetic averages of the 
individual evaluators' scores.  However, the total scores were not 
based on the average of the individual scores, but rather on scores 
reached by a consensus of the evaluators, and Ogden's final consensus 
score did increase over its earlier consensus score.  We thus 
correctly determined that Ogden's allegation had no merit.  In any 
case, the final round of evaluations was complete and separate from 
any earlier evaluation and, as such, the results of the prior 
evaluations are not relevant to the final evaluation, which Ogden did 
not show was unreasonable.  See Delta Sys. Consultants, Inc., 
B-201166, June 23, 1981, 81-1 CPD  para.  519 at 7. 

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States