BNUMBER:  B-271381.2
DATE:  August 28, 1996
TITLE:  Gentex Corporation--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Gentex Corporation--Reconsideration

File:     B-271381.2

Date:August 28, 1996

Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, 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, even assuming the 
protester's argument had merit, no prejudice inured to the protester 
as a result of the agency's alleged error.

DECISION

Gentex Corporation requests reconsideration of our decision Gentex 
Corp. B-271381, June 18, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  281, in which we denied its 
protest of the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract 
for pilot pressure-demand breathing oxygen masks and related equipment 
components to Scott Aviation under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
SPO920-95-R-X035.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

In its protest, Gentex challenged the contract award on the ground 
that the agency had improperly waived a mandatory qualification 
requirement for one of the oxygen mask's required components--the 
inhalation/exhalation valve--which was set forth on a qualified 
products list (QPL) maintained by Kelly Air Force Base, which is the 
cognizant qualifying activity for the valve component.

We denied Gentex's protest.  Contrary to Gentex's interpretation of 
the solicitation, the RFP did not include any qualification 
requirement.  The RFP did not incorporate any of the master 
solicitation's mandatory QPL provisions.[1]  Nor did the RFP  
incorporate FAR  sec.  52.209-1, "Qualification Requirements"--which is a 
mandatory provision to be included in all solicitations containing a 
qualification requirement.  FAR  sec.  9.206-2.  The agency also did not 
prepare a written justification for a qualification requirement, FAR  sec.  
9.202(a)(1); provide offerors with all requirements they must satisfy 
to become qualified, FAR  sec.  9.202(a)(2); and provide an opportunity for 
qualification before award via publication in the Commerce Business 
Daily, FAR  sec.  9.205, all mandatory actions when a qualification 
requirement is imposed.  Given the absence from the solicitation of 
any qualification reference or associated FAR provision, and since the 
agency had never publicized its intent to impose a qualification 
requirement, we concluded that there was no basis for Gentex's 
interpretation that the RFP required the awardee to provide an oxygen 
mask which complied with the QPL criterion.  

On reconsideration, Gentex argues that our prior decision warrants 
reversal because of a legal error.  Gentex contends that despite the 
solicitation's failure to incorporate the QPL requirements, DLA 
nevertheless must terminate the awarded contract and resolicit this 
requirement because the cognizant qualifying activity for the mask's 
QPL components--Kelly Air Force Base--never authorized DLA to conduct 
a procurement for the masks without enforcing the QPL requirements.

This argument is a variation on one of Gentex's initial protest 
challenges, and--for the same reasons discussed in our prior decision 
and reiterated below--does not warrant reversing our initial decision.  
In this regard, the record showed that after realizing that the 
qualification requirement had been omitted from the solicitation, DLA 
executed a post-award modification to Scott's contract to require 
satisfaction of QPL requirements through a first article testing 
provision.  Although Gentex challenged the post-award modification as 
improper, and requested, as it has on reconsideration, that the 
awardee's contract be terminated and the requirement resolicited with 
the QPL provisions, we denied this ground of protest since there was 
no showing that in the event of a resolicitation with the 
qualification provision the results of the procurement would have been 
any different.

Specifically, the record unequivocally showed that at the time it 
competed for award, the protester mistakenly believed that the RFP 
contained the mask's QPL requirements.  Thus, Gentex actually competed 
under the impression that the more restrictive terms applied--the same 
terms, which, in the event we sustained Gentex's protest against the 
post-award modification, would be incorporated in the ensuing 
resolicitation.  Gentex never argued--nor did the record suggest--that 
the protester's pricing or delivery schedule would change in the event 
of a resolicitation.  Nor did the protester suggest that Scott's lower 
price resulted from its intention to furnish a non-QPL mask.  
Consequently, since competitive prejudice is an essential element of 
every viable protest, and since no reasonable possibility of prejudice 
was evident from the record, our Office denied Gentex's protest 
against the post-award modification.  See EEV, Inc., B-261297; 
B-261297.2, Sept. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  107.

Gentex's argument on reconsideration that DLA was required to conduct 
its procurement in accordance with the Air Force's QPL provisions 
would call for the same remedy which Gentex sought during its initial 
protest when it challenged the post-award contract 
modification--termination of the awardee's contract and a 
resolicitation of the mask requirement using the QPL criteria.  
However, as discussed in our initial decision (and as repeated above), 
given the record in this case, and Gentex's failure--both in its 
initial protest and on reconsideration--to articulate how the results 
of the competition would change in the event of a reprocurement, we 
conclude that, even assuming DLA was required to adhere to the Air 
Force's QPL requirements, no prejudice inured to the protester as a 
result of this alleged error.

Consequently, since the award would not be overturned even if we were 
to sustain the protest on reconsideration, and since the protester has 
not otherwise demonstrated that our prior decision contains an error 
of fact or law as required by 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.14(a) (1996), we deny the 
request for reconsideration.  See Wooten & Wilson Assocs.--Recon., 
B-244527.3, Feb. 19, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  199; Lucas Place, Ltd.--Recon., 
B-238008.3, Sept. 4, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  180.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. DLA uses a master solicitation method; for these types of 
procurements, suppliers are given a lengthy master solicitation that 
contains standard contract provisions, to use in conjunction with 
subsequent individual solicitations--such as this RFP--which are 
streamlined documents that specifically incorporate by reference 
pertinent standard terms, paragraphs and conditions set forth in the 
master solicitation.  See generally Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  14.203-3 and 15.408(d); Sonetronics, Inc., B-237267, Feb. 12, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  178.