BNUMBER:  B-270744.2
DATE:  August 20, 1996
TITLE:  Allstate Van and Storage, Inc.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Allstate Van and Storage, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-270744.2

Date:August 20, 1996

Michael J. Radford, Esq., 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 the request is based on 
information that was available to, but not proffered by, the protester 
during consideration of the initial protest, and on mere disagreement 
with prior decision.

DECISION

Allstate Van and Storage, Inc. requests reconsideration of our 
decision, Allstate Van and Storage, Inc., B-270744, Apr. 17, 1996, 
96-1 CPD  para.  191, denying its protest of the award of a contract to Pack 
& Crate Services, Inc. (P&C) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
N00244-96-D-5009, issued by the Department of the Navy for residential 
packing and moving services for military families located in the San 
Diego, California area.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

In its initial protest, Allstate challenged the award to P&C on the 
ground that the awardee's offer was both mathematically and materially 
unbalanced.  Allstate argued that the awardee had understated its 
proposed prices for contract line item number (CLIN) 0001, Complete 
Outbound services, and offered inflated prices for CLIN 0003, Overflow 
Outbound services.  In this regard, CLIN 0001 required the contractor 
to survey and pack a service member's household furnishings and 
belongings into government-provided 196 cubic foot standard shipping 
containers and ship the goods to the appropriate outbound destination.  
Under CLIN 0003, any items that would not fit into the CLIN 0001 
standard containers--either because they were too large (e.g., 
motorcycles or oversize sofas), too fragile (e.g., antiques), or 
undersized (e.g., overflow articles), were to be transported by the 
contractor to the contractor's local facility for special packing in a 
contractor-provided box and then reunited with the remaining CLIN No. 
0001 containers for shipment to the appropriate outbound destination.

In its protest, Allstate maintained that the services required by 
CLINs 0001 and 0003 were substantially similar.  As such, Allstate 
contended that the $103 difference between the awardee's proposed CLIN 
0001 price ($7 per net hundred weight count (NCWT)) and its proposed 
CLIN 0003 price ($110 NCWT) demonstrated that P&C's offer was 
mathematically and materially unbalanced.  

After reviewing the agency's and awardee's explanations of the pricing 
disparity, we concluded that the differences between the awardee's 
proposed CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 prices reasonably could reflect 
different costs involved in performing these two CLINs.  In our view, 
the record--which included a showing that the awardee's CLIN pricing 
was consistent with competitive awards made for similar moving 
services in other contracting regions, including Lemoore, California 
and Corpus Christi, Texas--demonstrated that the additional special 
handling, packaging, and shipping involved in dealing with overflow 
and/or oversize articles under CLIN 0003 reasonably could require a 
more expensive packaging and moving approach by the contractor because 
of additional costs necessary to minimize the contractor's risk of 
damage to the CLIN 0003 items--which are typically higher priced, 
valuable goods.

On reconsideration, Allstate for the first time requests that this 
Office "consider one item of additional evidence demonstrating that 
the arguments and limited evidence offered by the [a]gency and [P&C] 
were inaccurate, illogical and unreliable."  Specifically, in its 
reconsideration request, Allstate has introduced pricing data from a 
"late 1995" Camp Pendleton, California procurement which indicates 
that P&C's proposed prices for its standard packing/moving services 
CLINs and overflow packing/moving services CLINs differed by only $10 
NCWT per CLIN.  Allstate contends that this evidence demonstrates that 
the awardee's CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 prices for this 
procurement--which, as noted above differ by $103--are mathematically 
and materially unbalanced.  We will not consider this new evidence as 
it was not timely presented.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a request for reconsideration must 
specify alleged errors of law made or information not previously 
considered by our Office that warrants reversal or modification of our 
decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.14(a) (1996).
In order to provide a basis for reconsideration, additional 
information not previously considered must have been unavailable to 
the requesting party when the initial protest was being considered.  
Ameriko/Omserv--Recon., B-252879.4, May 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  341.  A 
party's failure to make all arguments or to submit all information 
available during the course of the initial protest undermines the goal 
of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and equitable decisions 
based on consideration of all parties' arguments on a fully developed 
record--and cannot justify reconsideration of a prior decision.  Id.

In this case, the record clearly shows that Allstate knew about P&C's 
Camp Pendleton CLIN pricing during the initial protest.  The Camp 
Pendleton public bid opening was held on October 27, 1995; shortly 
thereafter, on November 17 and December 13, Allstate filed 
agency-level protests challenging P&C's pricing as materially and 
mathematically unbalanced.  Both agency-level protests were denied.

On December 14, 1995, Allstate filed this protest with our Office 
challenging the Navy's award of a contract to P&C under the San Diego 
procurement.  Despite its knowledge of P&C's Camp Pendleton CLIN bid 
pricing, Allstate never mentioned those pricing results during the 
course of its protest under this procurement--which included a lengthy 
March 20, 1996 telephone hearing during which the Navy stated that 
P&C's prices were consistent with other procurement pricing results, 
as well as a supplemental round of comments from all parties 
addressing the pricing disparity issues and evidence discussed during 
the March 20 hearing.

Whatever the reason for Allstate's failure to mention P&C's Camp 
Pendleton CLIN pricing results, it cannot proffer this information for 
the first time on reconsideration--7 months after it first learned of 
this evidence.  CB Commercial Gov't. Servs. Group--Recon., B-259014.2, 
Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  176.  Since Allstate clearly could have 
introduced this evidence during the initial protest, but did not, we 
will not consider it now.  Id.

In its initial protest, Allstate also argued that the Navy should have 
factored potential fluctuations in the level of required moving 
services into its pricing evaluation of offerors' proposals.  Had the 
Navy done this, Allstate maintained, it would have realized that P&C's 
proposed price would not be the lowest in the event that actual moving 
needs exceeded the solicitation's stated quantity estimates.  

We dismissed this aspect of Allstate's protest as untimely.  In our 
decision, we explained that where--as here--contractors are on notice 
of the inherent unpredictability of a particular type of 
estimate--either by virtue of incumbency or experience in the 
field--any concerns regarding the accuracy of the government estimate, 
including how it will be factored in the final evaluation analysis, 
must be raised prior to the time set for receipt of proposals, in 
accordance with our timeliness rules.  See 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1).  On 
reconsideration, Allstate contends that our dismissal of this aspect 
of its protest as untimely will force offerors "to protest every 
solicitation where the [g]overnment's best estimates may not hold true 
in actual performance."

Allstate has not shown error with our dismissal--it merely disagrees 
with it.  Such disagreement is not a basis for reconsideration.  
Hi-Shear Technology Corp.--Recon., B-261206.2, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
63.  In any event, notwithstanding Allstate's assertions to the 
contrary, the effect of enforcing our timeliness rules is not to 
compel protest challenges in every instance where an agency solicits 
its needs with a requirements-type contract.  Rather, our decision 
simply alerts offerors that in the event they suspect that the 
government's quantity estimates are defective, and warrant 
adjustment--either by changing the estimates, or by providing for the 
application of some type of quantity fluctuation ratio, such as that 
argued for by Allstate in this protest--such matters must be raised 
prior to the solicitation closing time, when it is most practicable 
for an agency to take corrective action.  See Allstate Van & Storage, 
Inc., B-247463, May 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  465.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States