BNUMBER:  B-271587.2
DATE:  August 30, 1996
TITLE:  Dyna-Air Engineering Corp.--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Dyna-Air Engineering Corp.--Reconsideration

File:     B-271587.2

Date:August 30, 1996

Peter A. Quinter, Esq., Becker & Poliakoff, for the protester.
Timothy Sullivan, Esq., and Martin R. Fischer, Esq., Adduci, Mastriani 
& Schaumberg, for Vickers, Inc., an intervenor.
Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, 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 requester fails to show 
that prior decision contains errors of law or fact or to present 
information not previously considered that warrants reversal or 
modification of the decision.

DECISION

Dyna-Air Engineering Corp. requests reconsideration of our decision, 
Dyna-Air Eng'g Corp., B-271587, July 8, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  7, in which 
we denied its protest of the rejection of its offer under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. SPO500-95-R-A381, issued by the Defense Logistics 
Agency, Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC), for metallic particle 
detectors.  Dyna-Air's offer was rejected because it had not been 
approved as a source for the item at the time of award.  The protester 
reiterates its argument that DISC unduly delayed forwarding its 
request for source approval to the Navy activity with approval 
authority.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must either show that our prior decision contains 
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).  Neither repetition of arguments made during 
our consideration of the original protest nor mere disagreement with 
our decision meets this standard.  Dictaphone Corp.--Recon., 
B-244691.3, Jan. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  2.  Nor will we consider 
arguments that could have been, but were not, raised during our 
initial consideration of the protest since to do so would undermine 
the goal of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and equitable 
decisions based on consideration of the parties' arguments on a fully 
developed record.  Liebig Int'l, Inc.; Defense Logistics 
Agency--Recon., B-265662.2; B-265662.3, Mar. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  169.  
Dyna-Air's request does not meet the standard for reconsideration of 
our decision.

In its request for reconsideration, Dyna-Air repeats the argument that 
it made during our initial consideration of the protest that DISC 
waited an unreasonable period of time before forwarding its source 
approval request to the Navy.  We considered that argument in our 
prior decision, finding that any delay by DISC was attributable to 
Dyna-Air's failure to submit a complete technical data package for the 
item initially and to reasonable attempts by agency officials to 
obtain information missing from the technical data packages submitted 
by the protester for other related items.  In the latter regard, we 
concluded that under the circumstances it was not unreasonable for 
DISC to have held off on forwarding any complete technical data 
packages while it sought to obtain the data missing from the 
incomplete ones since this approach allowed the technical information 
to be presented to the design control activity in a unified (as 
opposed to piecemeal) fashion, which promoted efficiency in the source 
approval process.  Although the protester apparently disagrees with 
our conclusion regarding the reasonableness of the delay, such 
disagreement does not provide a basis for reconsidering our decision.  
See Dictaphone Corp.--Recon., supra.

Dyna-Air also argues that its failure to submit information concerning 
a similar item that it had previously furnished until requested to do 
so by the Navy during April 1996 was attributable to DISC's failure to 
furnish it with a copy of the Navy's Source Approval Information 
manual, as revised in January 1995.[1]  This argument does not provide 
a basis for reconsideration of our prior decision since it could have 
been, but was not, raised during our initial consideration of the 
protest.  Liebig Int'l, Inc.; Defense Logistics Agency--Recon., supra.  
In any event, we see no basis to conclude that the requester's failure 
to submit data on a similar item (due to its reliance on the 
out-of-date manual which failed to note that the "new item" category 
had been dropped) significantly delayed either DISC's forwarding of 
its source approval request to the Navy or the Navy's consideration of 
it.  In this regard, the record does not show that DISC delayed 
forwarding the packages because they lacked information regarding 
similar items (DISC, in fact, appears to have been just as unaware of 
the revision to the source approval manual as the requester), while 
the Navy's consideration of the technical data packages was delayed 
only a couple of weeks by the request for similar item data.

Dyna-Air further argues that the DISC employee with primary 
responsibility for reviewing its technical data packages was a 
chemical, as opposed to mechanical or aeronautical, engineer, without 
manufacturing experience, and that her lack of qualifications rendered 
her incompetent to review its technical submissions for completeness.  
The requester asserts that it was not aware of this information until 
July 30, 1996, the date on which it filed a supplement to its request 
for reconsideration.  We fail to see the relevance of the DISC 
engineer's professional qualifications given our conclusion that it 
was reasonable for her to delay forwarding Dyna-Air's technical data 
package for the particular item in question to the Navy while she 
sought to obtain information that the protester concedes was missing 
from other related data packages.

Finally, we will not consider the protester's argument that DISC 
unnecessarily delayed forwarding its technical data package to the 
Navy while awaiting qualification testing information not required by 
the Source Approval Information manual since this argument could have 
been, but was not, raised during our initial consideration of the 
protest.  Id.  Although Dyna-Air asserts that it was not aware until 
July 30, 1996, that "Category 3 new item requirements do not require 
qualification testing, but only acceptance testing," the requester was 
clearly on notice of the Category 3 requirements well prior to the 
filing of its initial protest.  In this regard, Dyna-Air stated in its 
June 6, 1996 submission to our Office that it had a copy of the 
Category 3 requirements in its possession at the time it met with the 
DISC contracting officer on March 29, 1995.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. As explained in our prior decision, the Navy had revised its Source 
Approval Information manual in January 1995 to eliminate the "new 
item" category, leaving only the "same item" and the "similar item" 
categories, the latter of which required the submission of current 
configuration drawings for a similar item.