BNUMBER:  B-271385.9
DATE:  February 5, 1997
TITLE:  Am-Pro Protective Agency Inc.; MVM, Inc.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Am-Pro Protective Agency Inc.; MVM, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-271385.9

Date:February 5, 1997

John E. McCarthy, Jr. Esq., James J. Regan, Esq., and Paul Shnitzer, 
Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester.
Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where requesting party raises 
untimely arguments and otherwise does not demonstrate that the 
decision contains errors of fact or law.

DECISION

Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. requests reconsideration of our 
decision, Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc., B-271385.4 et 
al., Sept. 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  192, denying the protests against the 
award of a contract for guard services to Inter-Con Security Systems, 
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-OPRAQ-94-R-0434, issued 
by the Department of State.  In its request for reconsideration, 
Am-Pro argues that our Office improperly denied MVM's argument that 
Inter-Con's proposal was unbalanced.  

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must show that our prior decision contains 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); Richards Painting Co.--Recon., B-232678.2, May 19, 
1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  481.  

In our denial of the protests, we determined that the awardee's 
proposal was not impermissibly unbalanced.  With respect to a 
requirements contract, the determination of whether there is material 
unbalancing usually turns on the accuracy of the solicitation's 
estimates of the agency's anticipated needs.  In response to a 
question posed by our Office during the development of the protest, 
the State Department stated that the solicitation's estimates 
reflected the actual projection of the agency's needs at the time that 
the RFP was prepared.  In its reconsideration request, the protester 
asserts that in order to adequately respond to our question, the 
agency was required to certify that the solicitation's estimates 
reflected the government's actual current needs when, in fact, we 
desired that the agency state whether the solicitation's requirements 
reflected the agency's needs.    

In the decision, in determining that there was no credible basis to 
call into question the reliability or validity of the agency's 
estimates, we noted that the agency had confirmed that its estimates 
for the labor hours were based on the current year requirements of the 
incumbent (Am-Pro) at the time that the RFP was issued.  Further, 
since nothing in the record called into question the essential 
accuracy of these estimates, there was no reasonable basis for viewing 
the awardee's proposal as representing other than the lowest cost to 
the government.  Am-Pro's reconsideration request simply speculates 
that our question to the agency suggested that there was a subsequent 
change in the agency's actual needs, which is simply not so.  

Additionally, Am-Pro questions our determination that its objection to 
the solicitation estimates was untimely.  In our decision, while we 
addressed all of MVM's unbalancing arguments on the merits, we held 
that Am-Pro, based on its experience as the incumbent contractor, knew 
or should have known of the defects it alleged were in the government 
estimate before it submitted its proposal.        Am-Pro's current 
position that it only became aware of problems with the solicitation 
estimates when it received the agency's September 3, 1996, response to 
our question is simply inaccurate.  In fact, Am-Pro expressed its 
concern regarding the solicitation's estimates in a July 29 submission 
in which it stated that, "[t]here is no assurance that the number of 
hours actually utilized will be the same or will be in the same ratio 
as the hours in the [RFP's] schedule."  Since this aspect of Am-Pro's 
protest was properly dismissed as untimely because it was first raised 
after the closing time for receipt of proposals, there is no basis for 
its reconsideration now.  ASI Personnel Servs., Inc.--Recon., 
B-258537.8, Oct. 31, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  198.

The request for reconsideration is denied.  

Comptroller General 
of the United States