BNUMBER:  B-270499.6
DATE:  August 15, 1996
TITLE:  Schleicher Community Corrections Center,
Inc.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Schleicher Community Corrections Center, 
          Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-270499.6

Date:August 15, 1996

Kent C. Dugmore, Esq., Parsons, Behle & Latimer, for the protester.
Aldo A. Benejam, 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 does not show 
that prior decision denying its protest contained any errors of fact 
or law or present information not previously considered that warrants 
reversal or modification of our decision.

DECISION

Schleicher Community Corrections Center, Inc. (SCCC) requests that we 
reconsider our decision in Schleicher Community Corrections Center, 
Inc., B-270499.3 et al., Apr. 18, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  192, in which we 
denied SCCC's protest of the award of a contract to Cornell 
Corrections of California, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
200-256-W.  The RFP was issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 
residential community corrections services.  SCCC argued that the 
agency improperly evaluated its proposal with respect to the facility 
it offered and failed to conduct meaningful discussions with SCCC.  In 
its request for reconsideration, SCCC contends that our decision 
contains errors warranting reversal.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements-type, 
indefinite-delivery contract, for a 12-month base period, with up to 
three 1-year option periods.  Section M of the RFP listed the 
following evaluation factors in descending order of relative 
importance (subfactors within each factor are shown in parenthesis):  
technical (reports/policy/procedure; facility; overall programs 
approach); cost; and management (personnel and staffing; experience 
and structure).  Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal 
was determined to be "in the best interest" of the government.

The protester's central contention was that the evaluation of its 
proposal under the "facility" subfactor was unreasonable.  In this 
connection, the protester asserted that it offered the only 
operational facility accredited by the American Correctional 
Association, and thus its proposal should have been rated higher under 
that subfactor.  SCCC also argued that the agency had failed to 
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm.  We disagreed with the 
protester with respect to these allegations and denied the protest. 

Under the "facility" subfactor, out of a maximum possible score of 150 
points, SCCC's proposal received a total of 143 points--nearly a 
perfect score--earning the proposal a rating of "excellent" under this 
evaluation subfactor.  In its protest, SCCC maintained that its 
proposal should have received a higher rating under this subfactor 
because it proposed an existing facility.  As we pointed out in our 
decision, however, the RFP did not require offerors to propose an 
existing operational or accredited facility.  The RFP required only 
that the contractor's facility be "fully operational and ready for 
performance to begin within 60 days after the date of contract award."  
In other words, contrary to the protester's understanding of the RFP, 
offerors were permitted to propose a facility which was not yet fully 
operational by the time initial proposals were due.  The protester, 
essentially reiterating the arguments it made during consideration of 
the initial protest, has presented no evidence or arguments in its 
reconsideration request that warrant reversing our conclusion in this 
regard.[1]

Also with respect to the "facility" subfactor, the protester 
challenged the evaluation of the awardee's proposal, specifically, the 
agency's decision to raise the awardee's proposal's score after 
discussions from 122.6 to 145 points.  The record reasonably supported 
this change in score based on the evaluators' conclusion that the 
awardee had "addressed all major and minor elements under this 
factor."  As with its challenge to the evaluation of its own proposal 
under this subfactor, SCCC's criticism of the evaluation in this area 
focused on the fact that the awardee did not offer an existing 
facility.  Although we did not address this rescoring issue in detail 
in our initial decision, we did review the protester's contentions 
and, as stated in our decision, concluded that they had no merit.  
Other than asserting that the evaluation was insufficiently documented 
in this regard, and urging us to reconsider our conclusion, the 
protester has presented no basis showing that our original conclusion 
was incorrect.

Regarding discussions, for each evaluation subfactor, the evaluators' 
individual worksheets listed several items which were categorized as 
either "major" or "minor" elements of the respective subfactor.  For 
each item, evaluators were to indicate with a check mark whether that 
element had been satisfied, or enter some notation indicating a 
deficiency.  In its protest, SCCC argued that the agency failed to 
conduct meaningful discussions with the firm because it did not 
apprise it of several items identified on these worksheets as 
deficient in SCCC's proposal, particularly under the "overall 
approach" subfactor, where the protester's proposal was significantly 
downgraded.  We concluded based on our review of the record that the 
agency's discussion questions accurately reflected the TEP's concerns 
about SCCC's proposal, and adequately pointed out those areas of 
SCCC's proposal requiring further clarification or explanation. In its 
reconsideration request, SCCC asserts that we failed to fully address 
its contentions.

As SCCC correctly points out in its reconsideration request, our 
decision did not address whether the agency was required to raise 
deficiencies identified under the "overall approach" subfactor as 
separate discussion items, since the record shows that SCCC was not 
prejudiced by the agency's failure to do so.  Specifically, as we 
stated in our decision, the record shows that even if SCCC had been 
able to correct the deficiencies the TEP identified under the "overall 
approach" subfactor concerning the organization and overall quality of 
its proposal, and earn the maximum number of points in this area, 
SCCC's proposal's overall technical score would have remained lower 
than the scores of the awardee's and another offeror's lower-priced 
proposals.  Thus, the fact that the agency did not raise as separate 
discussion items the TEP's concerns with SCCC's proposal under the 
"overall approach" subfactor was immaterial to the relative standing 
of SCCC's proposal with respect to the awardee's or offeror B's 
proposal, and to the selection decision.  Accordingly, the lack of 
separate discussions under this subfactor provides no basis to object 
to the award decision.  See Lithos Restoration Ltd., 71 Comp. Gen. 367 
(1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379 (competitive prejudice is an essential element 
of a viable protest).  The protester does not dispute our conclusion 
in this regard, but merely repeats arguments it made during our 
consideration of its protest and generally disagrees with our 
conclusion that the agency's approach to discussions was reasonable.

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).  SCCC's repetition of arguments made during our 
consideration of the original protests and mere disagreement with our 
decision do not meet this standard.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., 
B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In its reconsideration request, the protester again complains that 
the agency improperly failed to provide SCCC with all of the documents 
concerning the evaluation of the proposals submitted by the other two 
unsuccessful offerors.  The protester does not provide any convincing 
argument--and we see none--showing how the evaluation of the two 
unsuccessful offerors' proposals is relevant to SCCC's protest.  To 
the extent that SCCC argues that the evaluation of the unsuccessful 
offerors' proposals was unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP's 
evaluation scheme, SCCC is not an interested party to raise these 
allegations.  See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.0(a) (1996).  The proper parties to 
raise these allegations are the other unsuccessful offerors, each of 
whom has a more direct interest in the outcome of such a challenge.  
See, e.g., Integrated Sys. Group, Inc., B-246446, Feb. 21, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  213.