_________________________________
 
                   MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
                            October 7, 1992
                   _________________________________
 
                            GSBCA 11938-P-R
 
                   CORPORATE SYSTEMS RESOURCES, INC.,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                      TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Paralee White and  Donn Milton of Cohen & White, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Peter  K. Shea,  William  L.  Osteen,  Edwin W.  Small,  and
   Michael L.  Wills, Office  of General  Counsel, Tennessee  Valley
   Authority, Knoxville, TN, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On September 25, 1992, the  Board issued an opinion  denying
   the protest of  Corporate Systems Resources, Inc.   On October 5,
   protester  filed a motion  for reconsideration, pursuant  to Rule
   32.  Protester maintains that the majority decision is internally
   inconsistent.
 
        Protester points  to  finding 12  ("At  the hearing  on  the
   merits, the  contracting officer  testified that  had the  agency
   received  a  letter from  Optigraphics  authorizing  protester to
   remarket Optigraphics' equipment and  services, from a  technical
   standpoint she would  have initiated discussions.   Transcript at
   119.").   In  light of  this  finding and  the record,  protester
   asserts that the  Board erroneously premised its  decision on the
   conclusion that the  agency did not negotiate or  pursue an award
   with protester on  the independent ground of  protester's failure
   to add value.
 
        Protester  misconstrues  the  record  and  decision, and  is
   attempting simply to relitigate factual and legal matters without
   a valid basis  to revisit  the issues.   As  expressly stated  in
   finding  12, the  contracting officer's  testimony addressed  the
   impact   of  a  letter   from  Optigraphics  "from   a  technical
   standpoint."    The  inquiry  and  testimony did  not  reach  the
   question of  what impact, if  any, a letter  may have had  on the
   agency conclusion  that protester's proposal  failed sufficiently
   to add  value to  justify negotiations or  further pursuit  of an
   award.
 
 
        Protester  has not established a basis sufficient to warrant
   reconsideration of  the  underlying decision.   Accordingly,  the
   Board DENIES the motion.
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
   _________________________            _________________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT                   DONALD W. DEVINE
   Board Judge                          Board Judge