BNUMBER:  B-274626.3 
DATE:  May 15, 1997
TITLE: Intelligent Decisions, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-274626.3, May
15, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Intelligent Decisions, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-274626.3

Date:May 15, 1997

Daniel B. Abrahams, Esq., and Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., Epstein Becker 
& Green, P.C., for the protester.
James J. Roby, Esq., and John R. Caterini, Esq., Department of 
Justice, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where requester reiterates 
arguments which merely reflect the requester's disagreement with the 
decision, but fails to show that the initial decision contains either 
errors of fact or law and fails to present information not previously 
considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision.

DECISION

Intelligent Decisions, Inc. (IDI) requests reconsideration of our 
decision in Intelligent Decisions. Inc., B-274626; B-274626.2, Dec. 
23, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  19.  In that decision, our Office denied the 
firm's protests against the issuance of a blanket purchase order (BPA) 
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to WIN Laboratories, Ltd. under its 
General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract 
for a quantity of personal computers, related software and hardware.  
IDI contends that our decision was flawed by errors of fact and law.  

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) (1997).  While IDI alleges such errors, it fails to 
demonstrate error in either fact or law upon which our decision rests; 
rather, IDI disagrees with our analyses and conclusions.  Mere 
disagreement with our decision does not warrant reversal or 
modification of the decision.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., 
B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274 at 2.

In our denial of the protest, we found that despite several procedural 
deficiencies during the conduct of the procurement, DOJ's actions were 
consistent with the procedures found at Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) Part 8 which 
govern an FSS buy and thus concluded that the challenged procurement 
was an FSS buy.  We also concluded that within the context of an FSS 
acquisition, DOJ's alleged discussions with WIN were proper since an 
agency is not precluded from communicating with, or considering 
information from, a vendor responding to the agency's request for 
quotations (RFQ) for products on its FSS, even if that communication 
occurs after the date established by the RFQ for receipt of 
quotations.  As stated in our prior decision, unlike a request for 
proposals or an invitation for bids, an RFQ issued to FSS contractors 
does not seek offers that can be accepted by the government to form a 
contract.  Rather, the RFQ is a means of gathering information from 
vendors on the products they would propose to meet the agency's needs 
and the prices of those products and related services.  The agency may 
then use this information as the basis for issuing a purchase order to 
the FSS contractor.    

IDI contends that our Office should reconsider the prior decision 
because we erroneously concluded that the challenged procurement was 
an FSS buy.  IDI claims that our conclusion was based on a "material 
mischaracterization" of  the discussions between DOJ and WIN as 
"requests for additional information" while ignoring the nature and 
extent of the communications which IDI argues, as it did in its 
protests, were consistent with a negotiated procurement.  Under 
negotiated procurement procedures, IDI argued, DOJ's discussions with 
WIN were improper because the discussion process was used to obtain a 
revised proposal only from WIN, to the prejudice of itself and other 
"bidders."  We specifically considered this argument in our prior 
decision and rejected IDI's contention that this acquisition was other 
than an FSS buy.  While IDI disagrees with our conclusion and presents 
many of the same arguments that it used to support its initial 
protests, it does not demonstrate that our conclusion is factually or 
legally incorrect.

Finally, IDI argues that we erred as a matter of law because we 
concluded that DOJ properly entered into a BPA with WIN and 
essentially repeats its earlier-raised arguments that the award 
document contains none of the mandatory provisions of a BPA.  IDI's 
mere repetition of its original argument demonstrates disagreement 
with our decision but does not satisfy the standard for 
reconsideration.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., supra.   

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States