BNUMBER:  B-276979.3 
DATE:  April 8, 1998
TITLE: Grot, Inc.--Reconsideration, B-276979.3, April 8, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Grot, Inc.--Reconsideration

File:     B-276979.3

Date:April 8, 1998

Robert J. Dambrino, Esq., Hickman, Sumners, Goza & Gore, for the 
protester.
Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., and Larry E. Beall, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show 
that prior decision denying its protest contained any errors of fact 
or law or present information not previously considered that warrants 
reversal or modification of our decision.

DECISION

Grot, Inc. requests that we reconsider our decision in Grot, Inc., 
B-276979.2, B-277463, Aug. 14, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  50, in which we denied 
Grot's protest of the cancellation after bid opening of invitation for 
bids (IFB) No. DACA01-97-B-0033, issued by the Department of the Army, 
Corps of Engineers, and the resolicitation of the same requirement.  
Grot argued that the agency lacked a compelling reason to cancel 
because the IFB did not contain ambiguous or defective specifications, 
which was the stated basis for cancellation.  We denied the protest 
because we concluded that cancellation on the basis of inadequate 
specifications was proper since the specification deficiencies were 
such that the solicitation did not adequately reflect the government's 
needs, and the agency had improperly provided clarifications to only 
one offeror, namely the protester.  In its request for 
reconsideration, Grot maintains that our decision is premised on 
alleged "admissions" of ambiguous specification made by Grot in the 
form of pre-bid opening letters requesting clarification of certain 
specifications, and asserts that those concerns had been addressed 
prior to bid opening by solicitation amendment No. 0003, which was 
issued on April 10, 1997.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

The solicitation was for the addition and/or replacement of fire 
protection devices and fire alarm systems in several buildings at 
Arnold Air Force Base.  Four bids were received by the April 29 bid 
opening, ranging from $1,322,807 to $3,017,218.  The government 
estimate was $1,285,214.  Grot's bid of $2,282,000 became low after 
the apparent low bidder claimed a mistake in bid and was allowed to 
withdraw its bid.  When the agency compared the three remaining bids 
with the government's estimate, it concluded that none of them was in 
the "awardable range" (presumably meaning that none was at a 
reasonable price).

The agency subsequently examined the solicitation and determined that 
the specifications were ambiguous and in some instances did not 
clearly define the scope of work.  The agency determined that the 
system design had to be clarified to ensure accurate understanding of 
the scope of work by bidders and concluded that this constituted a 
compelling reason to cancel the IFB.  After cancellation, the 
specifications were revised and a new solicitation was issued on June 
20 with a July 22 bid opening date.  

Grot maintained that the clarifications and changes contained in the 
resolicitation were insignificant and that it was entitled to the 
award as the low responsive bidder.  Based on the numerous and 
material defective solicitation specifications pointed out by the 
agency, we found the agency's determination to cancel the IFB was 
reasonable.  We also noted in our decision that, while Grot asserted 
in its protest that the amended specifications were unambiguous, the 
record established that the protester repeatedly sought clarification 
from the agency regarding numerous specifications, including some that 
formed the basis for the agency's determination that the 
specifications were ambiguous.

In its reconsideration request, the protester asserts that all its 
concerns expressed prior to bid opening were resolved by the agency 
through the issuance of amendment No. 0003.  Grot further objects that 
the existence of specification ambiguities does not provide a basis 
for the finding that there is a compelling reason for cancellation, as 
required by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  14-1404-1(a).  
Despite the protester's current position that amendment No. 0003 
satisfied all of its concerns, the record reflects that, on the 
contrary, after receipt of the amendment, by letter to the agency 
dated April 23, the protester expressed continued concerns about the 
asbestos removal requirement and the agency's failure to indicate heat 
detectors on the plans.  In fact, the record established that, while 
amendment No. 0003 made a significant number of changes to the 
specifications, it did not correct all deficiencies and ambiguities 
contained in the solicitation.  To the extent that Grot received other 
agency clarifications to which it alone was privy, this was 
insufficient to ensure that other bidders received an accurate 
description of the agency's actual requirements.  Thus, as explained 
in our initial decision, even after amendment No. 0003, the agency had 
reasonable concerns about, among other things, ambiguities that 
existed between the plans and the specifications with respect to the 
scope of work for testing the existing fire alarm/detection system, 
for the removal of lead paint, and the additions to or replacement of 
existing fire alarm/detection systems devices for numerous buildings.  
Contrary to the protester's understanding of what constitutes a 
compelling reason for cancellation, as explained in our initial 
decision, FAR  sec.  14.404-1(c)(1) explicitly provides that a finding 
after bid opening that the solicitation contained inadequate or 
ambiguous specifications may constitute a compelling reason to cancel 
an IFB.  
Accordingly, there is no basis to object to the propriety of the 
agency's determination that the materially ambiguous solicitation 
specifications provided a compelling reason for cancellation.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain 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).  To the extent that Grot's reconsideration request is 
predicated on other than its mistaken factual recitation, its 
repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original 
protests and mere disagreement with our decision do not meet this 
standard.  R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, l988, 
88-2 CPD  para.  274 at 2.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States