BNUMBER:  B-274924.3 
DATE:  June 12, 1997
TITLE: Consultants on Family Addiction--Reconsideration, B-274924.3,
June 12, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Consultants on Family Addiction--Reconsideration

File:     B-274924.3

Date:June 12, 1997

Sandy Rosenberg for the protester.
Bruce Denning, Esq., and Michael J. Shea, Esq., Sutherland, Asbill & 
Brennan, for Atlanta Psychological Associates, an intervenor.
Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, for the agency.  
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., Paul Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration based on information that protester could 
have submitted, but did not, in initial protest is denied; General 
Accounting Office's Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate 
piecemeal development of protest issues. 

DECISION

Consultants on Family Addiction (COFA) requests reconsideration of our 
decision, Consultants on Family Addiction, B-274924.2, Feb. 21, 1997, 
97-1 CPD  para.  80.  In that decision, we denied COFA's protest against the 
award of a contract to Atlanta Psychological Associates (APA) under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. 113E-97-01, issued by the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for 
treatment services for federal defendants and offenders.  COFA alleged 
that the agency improperly scored APA's proposal, particularly with 
regard to an APA counselor, who was a former COFA employee.  The 
protester challenged the agency's evaluation of its former counselor's 
qualifications on the grounds that the evaluation failed to reflect 
the poor performance of that counselor.[1]  We denied COFA's protest 
and noted in our decision that prior to award, the agency investigated 
the allegation that COFA's former employee performed poorly and found 
it to be without basis.  Our decision also took notice of the fact 
that COFA had submitted nothing apart from the allegation itself to 
substantiate this argument.  We concluded that the record provided no 
basis to question the agency's conclusion regarding the counselor's 
alleged poor performance.  

We deny the request for reconsideration.  

Our Regulations require that a protester seeking reconsideration 
submit a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon 
which reversal or modification of a prior decision is deemed 
warranted, specifying any errors of law or fact or information not 
previously considered.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.14(a) (1997).  Information not 
previously considered means information that was not available to the 
protester when the initial protest was filed.  PDC Machs., 
Inc.--Recon., B-244724.2, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  141 at 2.  Failure 
to make all arguments or submit all information available during the 
course of the initial protest undermines the goals of our bid protest 
forum--to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration 
of both parties' arguments on a fully developed record--and cannot 
justify reconsideration of our prior decision.  The Dep't of the 
Army--Request for Recon., B-237742.2, June 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  546 at 
4.  

In its reconsideration request, COFA essentially restates its 
contention that in evaluating APA's proposal the agency failed to take 
into account the poor performance of its former employee who is now 
employed by APA.  To support its argument, COFA now presents evidence, 
in the form of two affidavits, that provides further details 
pertaining to its allegation that its former employee performed 
poorly.  Since COFA does not explain why it could not have obtained 
and submitted this evidence in conjunction with its initial protest, 
it is not entitled to submit it now.   Id. at 5.  

COFA's additional assertion that the agency improperly downgraded its 
proposal  under the "capacity to perform" and "quality of staff" 
factors also does not provide a basis for reconsidering our decision.  
COFA reiterates its argument that the agency  "ignored" a certain 
individual who had extensive experience in providing treatment 
services in Fulton County.  The record makes it clear that the agency 
did not ignore the qualifications of COFA's personnel.  Rather, COFA's 
proposal was primarily downgraded due to the number of personnel 
turnovers that COFA had experienced in the months leading up to the 
award.[2]  COFA's repetition of arguments made during our 
consideration of its original protest and disagreement with our 
decision does not provide a basis for reconsideration.  R.E. Scherrer, 
Inc.--Request for Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD  para.  274 
at 2.  

The request for reconsideration is denied.  

Comptroller General 
of the United States.  

1. COFA specifically alleged that this individual while in its employ, 
refused to lead group counseling sessions for 6 weeks in July and 
August 1996, and refused, after returning from a vacation, to adjust 
her lunch hour to see a counseling client.  The counselor responded to 
these allegations in an affidavit.  

2. In any event, as pointed out in our initial decision, even if 
COFA's proposal had received a perfect technical score (75 points), 
COFA would not have been in line for the award.  Due to COFA's high 
proposal price, it received one of the lowest price scores (16.2 
points).  Its combined score of 91.2 points would still be lower than 
APA's combined score of 91.5 points, and the agency explains that 
APA's proposal would remain the most advantageous to the government.