1!R! CALL BCA; EXIT; __________________________________________ RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 1, 1992 __________________________________________ GSBCA 11687-P-R UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY, Respondent, and COMPUTER LITERACY WORLD, INC., Intervenor, and DUNN COMPUTER CORPORATION, Intervenor, and FUTURA SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor. Keith W. Griffen, Vice President of University Systems, Inc., Portland, OR, Grace Tay of University Systems Inc., Milpitas, CA, and David E. Russo, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Protester. Robert L. Brittigan, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Agency, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent. Edward J. Tolchin and Brian T. Goldstein of Fettmann & Tolchin, Fairfax, VA, counsel for Intervenor Computer Literacy World, Inc. Thomas P. Dunn, President of Dunn Computer Corporation, Sterling, VA, appearing for Intervenor Dunn Computer Corporation. Patricia O'Hearn, Vice President of Futura Systems, Inc., N. Andover, MA, appearing for Intervenor Futura Systems, Inc. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, PARKER, and HYATT. PARKER, Board Judge. Protester, University Systems, Inc. (USI), filed a timely motion on April 10, 1992, for reconsideration of the Board's decision denying USI's protest. Because USI presents no valid grounds for reconsideration, we deny the motion. Background In July 1991, the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) issued a solicitation for proposals to provide personal computer workstations. The solicitation stated that award would be made without discussions, except for those discussions needed for "minor clarification." The solicitation also reserved to the Government the right to conduct more extensive discussions if the contracting officer determined them to be necessary. USI was awarded the contract in November 1991, after it successfully completed capability and performance validation testing. Three lower priced offers, made by Futura Systems, Inc. (Futura), Computer Literacy World, Inc. (CLW), and Dunn Computer Corporation (Dunn), had been rejected when their systems failed to successfully complete the testing. When USI was awarded the contract, CLW and Dunn each filed protests with the Board. The protests alleged that DNA conducted the validation testing improperly, and that certain test failures resulted from matters that could have been easily remedied through minor clarification. The two protests were consolidated and proceeded to a hearing on the merits. Following completion of the first day of testimony, the parties entered into settlement negotiations that culminated in an agreement that returned the procurement to the testing stage and required Futura, CLW, and Dunn, as well as USI, to submit their systems for retesting. Computer Literacy World, Inc. v. Defense Nuclear Agency, GSBCA 11603-P, 1992 BPD 13 (Jan. 10, 1992). The settlement further provided for the submission of best and final offers for tested systems following retesting. This agreement effectively cancelled USI's award and terminated its contract. USI protested the terms of the settlement, alleging that DNA entered into this agreement with CLW and Dunn solely to avoid litigation. The Board rejected USI's contention, finding instead that DNA had entered into the agreement after reasonably determining that lower priced offers had been improperly rejected based on flawed testing. University Systems, Inc. v. Defense Nuclear Agency, GSBCA 11687-P, 1992 BPD 97 (Mar. 31, 1992). USI now asks the Board to reconsider that decision. 3 Discussion As the basis of protester's argument that the Board should reconsider its decision, USI states that "[b]oth the factual and legal premise of the Board's decision are incorrect." Memorandum of Law in Support of Protester's Motion for Reconsideration at 1. Protester's mere belief that the Board's decision is incorrect does not constitute a valid basis for reconsideration. 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 #] 1 Protester has not shown that any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 33 are applicable here. Rather, protester's motion for reconsideration merely rehashes the same evidence and arguments originally raised in its protest. In essence, protester still contends that respondent had no legal basis for entering into the settlement agreement. We reviewed USI's arguments and evidence when deciding its underlying protest and concluded that DNA's reasons for entering into the settlement were valid. 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. Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA No. 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 No. 10844-P-R, 91-1 BCA 23,589, 1990 411; Gilroy-Sims & Associates, GSBCA 8720-R, 88-3 BCA 21,085, at 106,453, aff'd, 878 F.2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1989). ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The reasons stated in Rule 33(a) that 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. 48 CFR 6101.33(a) (1991). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 4 Decision Protester's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _____________________ ________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge