APEC Technology Limited (APEC) has timely requested reconsideration of our decision in APEC Technology Limited, P.S. Protest No. 88-23, June 30, 1988, in which we denied its protest against the award of a contract to Votrax, Incorporated (Votrax), under Solicitation No. 104230-87-B-0077. The protester asserted that the multifunction voice response system (MVRS) offered by Votrax did not meet the requirements of the solicitation.
APEC challenges two aspects of our decision. First, APEC notes that, although our decision states that one of the grounds of its protest involves the inability of Votrax' system to permit a change in the mode of operation of any telephone line at any time, this is a requirement of Section C.5.1.b., paragraph 7 of the solicitation, and not Section C.5.1.c., paragraph 7, as indicated on page 9 of the decision. APEC contends that it did not complain that the Votrax system must be paused for the editing application (Section C.5.1.c., paragraph 7); rather, its assertion was that the Votrax system must be paused to permit a change in the mode of operation of any telephone line (Section C.5.1.b., paragraph 7). The protester asserts that our decision did not consider this aspect of its protest, and that there is no basis to conclude that the solicitation's mandatory requirement for operation of the telephone lines (as required by Section C.5.1.b., paragraph 7) has been met.
Second, APEC refers to the discussion at page 8 of the decision, which states that prior to the award of the contract, Votrax told the contracting officer that descriptive literature for the system it offered, the V5000, was out of print. It states that this is inconsistent with Votrax' statements during the course of the protest, which implied that the descriptive literature forthe V5000 was never written. 1 APEC contends that this is significant since the solicitation requires commercially available, off-the-shelf systems and a customer base of similar systems for a three year period. It asks how compliance with these requirements can be established if the descriptive literature is not written.
A request for reconsideration of a protest decision must set forth a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which a reversal or modification is found warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not considered. Postal Contracting Manual 2-407.8 f. (10). Reconsideration is not appropriate where the protester simply wishes us to draw from the arguments and facts considered in the original protest conclusions different from those we reached in that decision. Fort Lincoln New Town Corporation, On Reconsideration, P.S. Protest No. 83-53, November 21, 1983.
The discussion at paragraph 3 of page 9 of our decision did refer to the Votrax system's compliance with specification C.5.1.c., paragraph 7, rather than C.5.1.b., paragraph 7. However, contrary to the protester's assertions, on the record before us there is no basis to conclude that its assertion that the entire Votrax system must be placed in a pause mode in order to change the mode of operation of any telephone line is correct. As was the case as to the change of message, the Votrax proposal is to the contrary, a view accepted by the contracting officer and the technical evaluators.
APEC's arguments concerning the purportedly differing statements with respect to the descriptive literature are also unpersuasive. First, as noted at page 8 of our decision, the three-year customer base requirement was established by contacting the references supplied by Votrax, and not by use of descriptive literature.
The protester's characterization of Votrax' explanation for the absence of V5000 descriptive literature was entirely consistent with the answer furnished by Votrax in response to a question in the course of discussions. 2 We are unable to identify any fatal inconsistency between this assertion and its counsel's subsequent comments concerning the general relationship of computer systems to documentation.
There was sufficient evidence before the contracting officer, regardless of the stage of revision of the descriptive literature, for her to determine reasonably that the various components of the V5000 are off-the-shelf, commercially available items. In addition to the descriptive literature, the evidence included the technical proposal itself, and journals and manufacturers' catalogs for various component parts identified in the literature and the proposal.
APEC's argument in its request for reconsideration is really a restatement of that urged in its protest, that Votrax' system and its component parts are not commercially available. A repetition of arguments already made and rejected will not support a grant of reconsideration. See Neodata Services Group, On Reconsideration, P.S. Protest No. 86-64, March 6, 1987, and cases cited therein.
The request for reconsideration is denied.
William J. Jones
Associate General Counsel
Office of Contracts and Property Law
[checked against original JLS 2/24/93]
1/
APEC refers specifically to a May 10, 1988, letter submitted by Votrax' counsel which states, at footnote 9, that "[c]omputer systems are constantly in a state of revision and improvement", and that "[a]ccordingly, some of the user documentation provided with the proposal is V3000 or V2000 material, and clearly identified as such."2/
"The supplies of V5000 Guide to Operations had been depleted about the end of August. A new supply had been ordered in July and had not arrived by due date for RFP responses. V3000 Guides were substituted. Operations for the V5000 are exactly the same as the V5000. The Guidebooks are the same except for the name."