Date: April 25, 1989

P.S. Protest No. 89-14

LOCK CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Solicitation No. 337100-89-A-0017

ON RECONSIDERATION

Lock Corporation of America (LCA) requests reconsideration of our March 10 decision which upheld the contracting officer's determination that LCA was a nonresponsible offeror under Solicitation No. 337100-89-A-0017 for PS Item 0933L, lock, cash and stamp drawers. That determination was based on Quality Audit of LCA, with regard to LCA's current contract for the same item, performed one day after the offer due date. The audit suggested that LCA had inadequate manufacturing procedures and lacked required quality controls. Award was made to National Lock Corporation (National), on March 24.

As a basis for reconsideration, LCA submits information that it alleges was not previously considered in the decision. It states that, on March 22, the Postal Service reinspected LCA's operation and LCA "understands" that the inspection was satisfactory. Next, it refutes the comments timely made at the time of the protest, by National, an interested party, about the preferability of its pin tumbler locks to LCA's torsion tumbler design. LCA states that its 8-torsion tumbler cylinder has more "points of physical detent" than National's 5-pin tumbler design. Finally, LCA requests that the decision be "suspended" pending results of the retesting of 140 LCA locks.

The Procurement Manual (PM) requires that a request for reconsideration "contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not considered." PM 4.5.7.n. LCA does not allege any errors of law, nor does it suggest any error in our factual analysis. As to the further events recounted by LCA, although it may be appropriate to ask the contracting officer to consider new information pertaining to the responsibility determination up to the point at which award is made, any new information submitted after that is not grounds to reopen the matter. "While we agree that a determination of responsibility should not be made on the basis of "stale" infor-mation, we also believe that a procuring agency is not required to delay award indefinitely while a bidder attempts to cure the causes for its being found nonresponsible." Graphic Technology, Inc., P.S. Protest No. 85-66, December 30, 1985; Roarda, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-204524.5, May 7, 1982, 82-1 CPD ô 438. In this case, the time for LCA's evaluation with respect to its responsibility is past.

An argument that fails to address the actual basis for our decision presents no basis for our reconsidering that decision. See Bannum Enterprises -- Reconsideration, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-221279.2, 86-1 CPD ô 194, February 25, 1986. LCA's second ground for requesting reversal of our initial decision is its refutation of comments about its lock design. Since LCA's lock design was not a basis of our decision, information regarding the desirability of LCA's locks over those of National does not create grounds for reconsideration of our initial decision. Finally, the relief sought, "suspension" of our decision until further investigations are completed, is not relief that is available to LCA.

On reconsideration, our initial decision is affirmed.

[DDAnna for:]
William J. Jones
Associate General Counsel
Office of Contracts and Property Law
[checked against original JLS 5/11/93]