MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: March 4, 1994
                                                            
 
 
                        GSBCA 12736-P, 12744-P-R
 
 
                           ViON CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester/Intervenor,
 
                                  and
 
                           MLC FEDERAL, INC.,
 
                                           Protester/Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  COMPUTER SALES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        David R. Hazelton and Philip  L. Gordon of Latham & Watkins,
   Washington,  DC, counsel  for  Protester  in  GSBCA  12736-P  and
   Intervenor in GSBCA 12744-P, ViON Corporation.
 
        Michael E. Geltner  and Joan Teich of Geltner  & Associates,
   Washington,  DC,  counsel  for Intervenor  in  GSBCA  12736-P and
   Protester in GSBCA 12744-P, MLC Federal, Inc.
 
        Colonel Riggs  L. Wilks, Jr., Major Charles  R. Marvin, Jr.,
   Major Karl M. Ellcessor, III, and Captain Gerald P. Kohns, Office
   of the Chief  Trial Attorney, Department of  the Army, Arlington,
   VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Lorraine S. Cherrick of Computer  Sales International, Inc.,
   St.   Louis,  MO,   counsel   for   Intervenor   Computer   Sales
   International, Inc.
   Before      Board     Judges      DANIELS     (Chairman)      and
   PARKER.[foot #] 1
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge. 
 
 
        On  February  16, 1994,  the  Board  dismissed for  lack  of
   jurisdiction  a protest filed  by MLC Federal,  Inc., against the
   Department of the Army's award of a  contract for the supply of a
   mainframe computer,  as well as  MLC's intervention in  a protest
   filed by  ViON Corporation challenging  the same award.   We held
   that  MLC was not  an interested party  because it had  no direct
   economic interest in the award  of the contract.  The procurement
   was by sealed  bid.  MLC was neither  next in line for  award nor
   able to show  that (a) its  bid was responsive  and (b) all  bids
   between  its   and  the   awardee's  were   nonresponsive.     We
   specifically found that with regard to the only two issues raised
   by MLC as to one of the lower-priced bidders, Amdahl Corporation,
   the responsiveness of MLC's bid  and the other one was identical.
   ViON Corp. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12736-P, et al. (Feb.
   16, 1994), 1994 BPD   35.
 
        On  February 28,  MLC  moved  for  reconsideration  of  this
   decision,   pursuant  to  Board   Rule  32.[foot #] 2     In  the
   motion, MLC  notes that the  Board's decision did not  address an
   argument  made  earlier  by  MLC:  a  solicitation  specification
   limiting the area which the computer could occupy was  ambiguous,
   so no award was permissible.   MLC also now raises for the  first
   time a new  theory as to why  Amdahl was not eligible  for award:
   Amdahl's bid  was no  longer available to  the Government  at the
   time MLC filed its protest.
 
        Neither of  these arguments is  either timely or valid.   We
   did  not address  the first  one  earlier because  it alleges  an
   impropriety in the solicitation, and thus would  have been timely
   as a ground of  protest only if raised before bid  opening.  Rule
   5(b)(3)(i).   In any event, the  Board has already ruled,  in the
   context of cross-motions for summary  relief in the ViON protest,
   that the specification may be reasonably construed in the way the
   Army has interpreted it.   ViON Corp. v. Department  of the Army,
   GSBCA 12736-P (Feb. 17, 1994), 1994 BPD   37.
 
        The second  theory was  raised for the  first time  nearly a
   month after  the  deadline prescribed  by  the Board  for  filing
   allegations that lower-priced bids were nonresponsive (and nearly
   two weeks  after the Board ruled  that MLC was  not an interested
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     Board Judge LaBella, a member of the panel of
   judges which issued the Board's  earlier ruling on the matter for
   which reconsideration is sought, is unavailable to participate in
   this decision.
 
        [foot #] 2     58 Fed. Reg. 69246, 69264 (Dec. 30, 1993) (to
   be codified at 48 CFR 6101.32).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   party).   MLC  had  a  copy of  Amdahl's  bid before  filing  its
   allegations, and thus  could have raised the theory  then just as
   easily as now.   A glance at Amdahl's bid shows that  even if the
   theory were timely, we could not accept it.  The bid was open for
   sixty days from the date on which it was due, January 10, 1994 --
   or until March 11, 1994.   Protest File, Exhibit 25 at SF33;  see
   also id., Exhibit 4 at 2.  The bid was therefore available to the
   Government  when  MLC's protest  was  filed (January  31)  -- and
   indeed, is still available today.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   I concur:
   _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER
   Board Judge