BNUMBER:  B-270538.5; B-270538.6
DATE:  November 20, 1996
TITLE:  Defense Logistics Agency; Moheat Environmental Services--
Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Defense Logistics Agency; Moheat Environmental Services--                 
          Reconsideration

File:     B-270538.5; B-270538.6

Date:November 20, 1996

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., Riley & Artabane, for Moheat Environmental 
Services, Inc., the intervenor.
Gail West and Thomas J. Wallenfang, Defense Logistics Agency, for the 
agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Submission of additional information by an agency, which was available 
and could have been submitted by the agency during the pendency of a 
protest which was sustained, and expressions of disagreement with a 
protest decision which fail to show that the decision was based on 
either factual or legal error warranting reversal of that decision, do 
not provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration of the protest 
decision.

DECISION

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Moheat Environmental Services, 
Inc. request reconsideration of our decision, PMT Servs., Inc., 
B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  98, which sustained PMT's protest 
of DLA's evaluation of PMT's past performance and the award to Moheat 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4400-95-R-0016 for hazardous 
waste disposal services at various locations in Texas.

We deny the requests for reconsideration.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain 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).  Information not previously considered which may 
warrant reconsideration must have been unavailable to the requesting 
party when the initial protest was being considered.  CB Commercial 
Gov't Servs. Group--Recon., B-259014.2, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  176.  
Repetition of arguments made during consideration of the original 
protest or mere disagreement with our decision does not provide a 
basis for reconsideration.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, 
Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274.

In sustaining the protest, we determined that DLA's cost/technical 
tradeoff decision was unreasonable because it was based on an 
inadequate evaluation of PMT's past performance.  DLA alleges that our 
decision was based on errors of fact that warrant reversal of the 
decision.  In order to identify these alleged errors, DLA now provides 
additional information, including a detailed analysis of each 
offeror's past performance history and the contract requirements,[1] 
and also responds, for the first time, to statements made by PMT in 
its protest letter and repeated in its subsequent comments on the 
agency report.  This is information which the agency could and should 
have provided as part of its report on the protest; presentation of 
this information now does not provide a basis for reconsideration.  CB 
Commercial Gov't Servs. Group--Recon., supra.

Moheat disagrees with our finding that DLA's evaluation of past 
performance was inadequate and alleges that we improperly exceeded our 
standard of review by imposing our own judgment in place of agency 
discretion in the evaluation of proposals.  Moheat also asserts that 
this decision is incorrect because we did not find the evaluation to 
be inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  
Our standard of review in protests against allegedly improper 
evaluations is to examine the record to determine whether the agency's 
judgment was reasonable and in accord with the stated evaluation 
criteria.  Chem-Servs. of Indiana, Inc., B-253905, Oct. 28, 1993, 93-2 
CPD  para.  262; SDA Inc., B-248528.2, Apr. 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  320.  Our 
Office may, as we did in the challenged decision, question evaluations 
and award decisions where they are not reasonably based or are 
inadequately documented, even if they are otherwise consistent with 
the evaluation criteria.  SDA Inc., supra; Ashland Sales & Serv., 
Inc., B-255159, Feb. 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  108.  

In our decision, we found inadequately supported by the record the 
agency's determination under the stated evaluation criteria that PMT's 
proposal warranted a marginal rating because of PMT's prior contracts' 
lack of similarity in complexity as compared to the solicitation 
requirements.  We thus concluded that the evaluation and source 
selection were unreasonable based on the record; this is consistent 
with and proper under the applicable standard of review.  See id.

Moheat also contends that our decision was inconsistent with our 
decision in Advanced Envtl. Technology Corp., B-259252, Mar. 20, 1995, 
95-1 CPD  para.  149, which also involved the selection by DLA of a higher 
priced, higher rated offeror under a procurement for waste disposal 
services.  In that case, we found the agency's evaluation of the 
protester's past performance as acceptable to be reasonable because, 
unlike the present case, the decision was supported by the record.  
Moreover, contrary to Moheat's contention, the evaluation criteria in 
the two cases are different:  complexity of prior contracts was not a 
specifically stated evaluation factor in Advanced Envtl. Technology 
Corp., whereas it was a stated evaluation criterion here, on which the 
agency relied heavily in evaluating PMT's past performance as 
marginal.  Neither the RFP nor the agency's report here, however, 
defined what complexity was; nor did the record evidence what the 
agency considered reasonable indicia of complexity in evaluating past 
performance.[2]  While Moheat claims our decision imposed our own 
definition of "complexity," we only discussed some examples of what 
complexity of contract performance logically could be in order to 
illustrate that, absent some similar analysis of the stated complexity 
criterion based on RFP requirements and specific past performance 
histories, the agency's evaluation was not supported by the record and 
was thus unreasonable.  

Otherwise, Moheat's request for reconsideration does little more than 
selectively recite the facts stated in the decision and generally 
express disagreement with that decision.  This provides no basis for 
reconsideration.  See R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., supra.

The requests for reconsideration are denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. To the extent DLA's current submission reassesses PMT's past 
performance in relation to the specific requirements of the solicited 
contract, it is essentially conducting the reevaluation of proposals 
which we recommended as corrective action in our decision on the 
protest.

2. The agency now suggests that complexity is not an additional 
evaluation criterion as was stated in the RFP, but rather consists of 
the other stated evaluation criteria which relate to contract 
requirements, i.e., waste quantities, variety of pick up locations and 
waste streams, and performance time frames.  Although the agency now 
offers a detailed analysis of past performance under the intended 
evaluation criteria, as addressed in our decision, the agency's 
evaluation was not reasonable based on the protest record.