__________________________________________ RECONSIDERATION DENIED: August 6, 1992 __________________________________________ GSBCA 11754-P-R UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent, and DATACOMP CORPORATION, Intervenor, and INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS, CORPORATION, Intervenor, and FEDERAL SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Intervenor. Keith W. Griffen, Vice President of University Systems, Inc., Portland, OR, appearing for Protester. Patricia D. Graham, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Procurement and Finance, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, and I. Avrum Fingeret, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Special Litigation, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Robert Clay Kime, Jr., President of DATACOMP Corporation, Vienna, VA, appearing for Intervenor DATACOMP Corporation. George Fuster, President of International Data Products, Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, appearing for Intervenor International Data Products, Corp. Laura E. Strotman of Federal Systems Group, Inc., Vienna, VA, appearing for Intervenor, Federal Systems Group. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, BORWICK, and PARKER. PARKER, Board Judge. On April 6, 1992, University Systems, Inc. (USI), filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision granting respondent Department of Energy's (DOE's) motion for summary relief and denying USI's protest. University Systems, Inc. v. Department of Energy, GSBCA 11754-P, 1992 BPD 93 (Mar. 27, 1992). In its motion, USI requests that the Board's decision be reversed, that respondent's motion for summary relief be denied, and that USI's motion for summary relief be granted and the protest granted. For the reasons stated below, we deny USI's motion for reconsideration. Background In August 1991, DOE issued an invitation for bids (IFB) requesting sealed bids for various items of automatic data processing equipment. In addition to an indefinite quantity of personal computers, memory chips, and disk drives, the solicitation requested bids for tape backup units (TBUs) with a minimum data transfer rate of 100 kilobytes per second. The solicitation also required bidders to submit descriptive literature with their bids so that DOE could verify that the equipment bid conformed to the requirements of the solicitation. USI submitted a bid for the TBU that included a statement that the data transfer rate of the TBU was 500 kilobytes per second. The transfer rate stated by USI was far in excess of the fastest rate for any TBU currently on the market. USI included descriptive literature on the TBU that stated that the data transfer of the TBU it had bid was really 500 kilobits per second, which only is equal to 62.5 kilobytes per second. USI claimed that it had intended to supply an accelerator card with the TBU to increase the data transfer rate to 100 kilobytes per second, however it failed to mention the accelerator card in its bid. DOE rejected USI's bid because it determined that the TBU did not meet the specified data transfer rate. USI protested to the Board on March 6, 1992, alleging that its bid was improperly rejected. USI contended that the data transfer rate it had stated in its bid was a clerical mistake which DOE should have allowed it to correct. We disagreed, finding that while the rate USI stated may have been a clerical error, the TBU it bid, in fact, did not meet the required specification for data transfer rates. Although USI maintained that it intended to include an accelerator card that would increase the rate to an acceptable level, there was no indication of this in its bid. We held that to have allowed USI to amend its bid in this manner would have been more than a simple clarification and, thus, was not permitted by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Discussion As the basis of USI's argument that the Board should reconsider its decision, USI states that the Board made "errors of law in its Decision occasioned through oversight." Protester's Motion for Reconsideration. Primarily, protester alleges that because the Board did not include in its decision each and every argument promulgated by protester in its motion for summary relief, the Board overlooked or ignored such arguments.[foot #] 1 Rule 32(a) permits reconsideration of a Board decision "for any of the reasons stated in Rule 33(a) and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity."[foot #] 2 48 CFR 6101.32 (1991). Protester has not shown that any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 33 is applicable here. Rather, protester's motion for reconsideration merely rehashes the same evidence and arguments originally raised in its protest. Contrary to protester's belief, we have already consideredall thearguments itraised previously, andrejected them. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Protester raises an additional issue in its Motion for Reconsideration, namely that the solicitation requirement for descriptive literature was unjustified. Our rules state that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in the solicitation must be made prior to bid opening. Rule 5(b)(3)(i). This basis for protest, raised long after bids were opened, is clearly untimely, and we do not consider it. [foot #] 2 The reasons stated in Rule 33(a) which justify reconsideration are: (1) Newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence; (2) Justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; (3) Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) The decision has been satisfied, released, or discharged . . .; (5) The decision is void . . .; or (6) Any other ground justifying relief from the operation of the decision or order. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- The Board has repeatedly stated that it does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and reassertions of old evidence. Protester's opinion that the case was wrongly decided does not justify a request for reconsideration. University Systems, Inc. v. Defense Nuclear Agency, GSBCA 11687-P-R (July 1, 1992); Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA 10404-C-R(10210-P), 91-3 BCA 24,261, 1991 BPD 171; Integrated Systems Group, Inc., GSBCA 10985-P-R, 91-2 BCA 23,793, 1991 BPD 35; Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA 10844- P-R, 91-1 BCA 23,589, 1990 BPD 411; Gilroy-Sims & Associates, GSBCA 8720-R, 88-3 BCA 21,085, at 106,453, aff'd 878 F.2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Decision Protester's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge