_________________________________________________ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 29, 1994 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 11642-P-R TERADATA CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, and HFS INC., Intervenor, and SEQUENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor. Shelton H. Skolnick, Vienna, VA, counsel for Protester. Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Joseph M. McDade, and Joseph M. Goldstein, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, and Richard C. Bean and Robert L. McGrath, Hanscom AFB, MA, counsel for Respondent. Arthur A. Goodell and Thomas K. David, HFS Inc., McLean, VA, counsel for Intervenor. Richard J. Webber, John J. O'Brien, and Dean L. Grayson, of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges HENDLEY, NEILL, and HYATT. HENDLEY, Board Judge. The protester filed a timely motion for reconsideration of our decision in Teradata Corporation v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 11642-P, 92-2 BCA 24,895, 1992 BPD 74, which was docketed as GSBCA 11642-P-R. Protester's motion simply reiterates arguments that it previously made before this Board. Hence, protester's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Discussion Protester has asked us to reconsider our previous decision denying its protest. The standard this Board uses in reviewing motions for reconsideration was recently set forth in Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Department of State, GSBCA 11593-P-R, 92-1 BCA 24,763, 1992 BPD 27. There we stated that: Motions for reconsideration should not be routine requests of losing parties. Mere disagreement with the result of a decision, or the belief that the decision is in error does not warrant reconsideration. Nor will a request for reconsideration be granted on the basis of simple reiteration of arguments raised and rejected in the underlying decision. Id. at 123,555-56, 1992 BPD 27 at 2 (citations omitted). As will be discussed below, protester's motion simply reiterates arguments that it previously made before this Board. Hence, protester's motion for reconsideration does not meet our standard. The basic thrust of the protester's motion is that the discussion portion of our decision failed to address the claimed violation of FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1), and failed to mention the claimed violation of the Competition in Contracting Act. We will address each contention in turn. FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) provides: When a benchmark is used as part of performance validation, agencies shall ensure that the FIP [Federal information processing] software selected for the benchmark is representative of actual requirements and requires the minimum amount of reprogramming or conversion. (emphasis added). In its protest complaint, the protester contended that FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) was violated by the Government because, allegedly, it did not use a testing scheme that was representative of the Government's "actual requirements." In our previous decision we addressed and rejected protester's argument concerning FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) by noting that there was a link between the Government's actual requirements and the "tests" that were the subject of protester's complaint. Specifically, we noted that "the specifications and tests under the [Live Test Demonstration] are not merely representative of [the Government's] actual requirements; rather they serve to define those requirements." Teradata, 92-2 BCA at 124,164, 1992 BPD 74, at 13. Therefore, we concluded that FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) was not violated by the testing scheme used by the Government inasmuch as the "actual requirements" of the Government were in fact defined by the testing mechanism. The suggestion by protester that this Board's previous decision failed to discuss its complaint concerning FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) is simply erroneous. Moreover, protester's contention, that this Board was mistaken in its analysis of FIRMR 201-20.304(b)(1) and that this Board's analysis will have deleterious effects, is irrelevant to our determination of whether a motion for reconsideration should be granted. Protester's Motion for Reconsideration at 4 (protester asserting that Board's opinion regarding FIRMR is "erroneous"). It is apparent that protester's arguments are a "mere disagreement with the result of [our] decision" and result from "the belief that the decision is in error." Electronic Data, 92-1 BCA at 123,555, 1992 BPD 27, at 2. Thus, under the standard expressed in Electronic Data these arguments do not warrant our reconsideration of our original decision. Id. Protester's attempt to have us examine the FIRMR issue anew thus boils down to a simple reiteration of arguments raised and rejected in the underlying decision. Therefore, this issue is not appropriate for reconsideration. Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA 10844-P-R, 91-1 BCA 23,589, 1990 BPD 411 (noting that this Board does not "reconsider decisions on the basis of arguments already made or reinterpretations of old evidence"). In addition to protester's claimed violation of the FIRMR, in its prior complaint the protester also asserted a violation of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). Specifically, protester argued that CICA was violated by the Government using a test that was inadequate for its expressed needs.[foot #] 1 Protester now asserts as its basis for a motion for reconsideration a failure by this Board to discuss and resolve this issue in our prior decision. It is apparent that protester is mistaken in its belief that the CICA issue was not addressed in our previous decision. This Board's discussion of "the second thrust of protester's complaint" was quite evidently a discussion of CICA. See Teradata, 92-2 BCA at 124,164, 1992 BPD 74, at 11. Protester ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The test used by the Government involved a database that was extremely small given the parameters of the Government's expressed needs. Protester contended that inasmuch as only 8MB of data were to be accessed, the entire sample of data would fit into the cache memory of any of the tested database machines. Protester believed that under such circumstances, the ability of the machine to retrieve data stored outside the machine would not be tested. Teradata, 92-2 BCA at ________ 124,164, 1992 BPD 74, at 11-12. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- is surely aware that the main thrust of CICA is to prevent the Government from using specifications that are unduly restrictive. Julie Research Laboratories, Inc., GSBCA 9549-P, 88-1 BCA 21,076, at 106,422, 1988 BPD 168, at 7. In other words, given the Government's minimum needs, CICA prevents the requirements of the contract from unnecessarily restricting competition for award. Id. It has long been held, however, that the agency determines for itself what its minimum needs are. Id., at 106,422, 1988 BPD 168, at 7, (noting that it is the agency itself that must live with the procured equipment and any mistakes that it might make in specifying its needs). CICA thus does not mandate requirements that are more stringent, because to do so would be to "decrease competition by stating [the agency's] needs in terms more restrictive than necessary." Id. In our prior decision, we expressly noted that protester's complaint about the adequacy of the test used by the Government was in reality a complaint about the needs of the Government. The fact that the protester believes that the test used by the Government was inadequate, i.e., too easy, is misplaced. The purpose of CICA is not to mandate more stringent requirements. This point of law was expressly discussed in our prior decision. See Teradata, 92-2 BCA at 124,163-65, 1992 BPD 74, at 11-13. Hence, this issue, despite protester's contentions to the contrary, is not a proper basis for reconsideration. Protester's reiteration of this issue in its motion does not affect our decision as parties are not permitted to use motions for reconsideration to reargue issues that were addressed and rejected by our previous decisions. E.g., Rocky Mountain, 91-1 BCA 23,589, 1990 BPD 411 ("[w]e do not reconsider decisions on the basis of arguments already made or reinterpretations of old evidence"). Decision Accordingly, protester's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. _____________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: _________________________ __________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge