RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: September 14, 1995 GSBCA 13281-P-R INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Bruce Trimble, Wayne Finegar, and Amy Hall of Skolnick & Leishman, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Barbara Robbins and Mita Shukla, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; and Richard S. Brown, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DEVINE, HYATT, and GOODMAN. GOODMAN, Board Judge. On August 25, 1995, pursuant to Board Rule 32,[foot #] 1 respondent, the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a timely motion for reconsideration of our decision in Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, GSBCA 13281-P (Aug. 16, 1995). On September 8, 1995, protester filed a response. We deny the motion. Discussion Rule 32 states, in relevant part: ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 48 CFR 6101.32 (1994). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Reconsideration may be granted . . . for any of the reasons stated in Rule 33(a)[foot #] 2 and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. . . . Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration. The standard this Board uses in reviewing motions for reconsideration was set forth in Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Department of State, GSBCA 11593-P-R, 92-1 BCA 24,763, 1992 BPD 27: 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). Respondent asserts two grounds for reconsideration. First, it states that "[t]he Board failed to consider the effect of FAR 15.607, 15.609 and 15.610(b) insofar as these sections permit communications to offerors prior to the negotiation stage only for purposes of clarification." Motion for Reconsideration at 1. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Rule 33(a), Relief from Decision or Order, sets forth the following grounds: (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, or a prior decision upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, and it is no longer equitable that the decision should have prospective application; (5) The decision is void, whether for lack of jurisdiction or otherwise; or (6) Any other ground justifying relief from the operation of the decision or order. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- To support its first proposed ground for reconsideration, respondent reiterates arguments presented in its previous record submission and also erroneously implies that the Board's decision suggested that respondent should communicate with protester concerning whether the equipment offered by ISG met the mandatory requirements before protester's proposal is determined to be in the competitive range. The Board's decision was explicit on this point. The Board found no evidence that protester's proposal could not be made acceptable. Accordingly, the Board held that protester's proposal should have been further evaluated, and if otherwise found technically acceptable, respondent's doubt as to whether the mandatory requirements were met should not have precluded the inclusion of the proposal in the competitive range and discussions to resolve the question as to the mandatory requirements. As discussions have already been held with those previously determined to be in the competitive range, no prejudice would result from discussions on these issues. The Board held further that protester is entitled to have its proposal evaluated and an appropriate competitive range determination made. Integrated Systems Group, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, any discussions which might take place as to whether protester's proposal met the mandatory requirements would take place after the proposal was included in the competitive range. Respondent's second alleged ground for reconsideration is a contention that the Board "failed to consider all portions of the solicitation in determining the Respondent violated FAR 15.608(a), by evaluating Protester's proposal using an evaluation factor not specified in the solicitation." Motion for Reconsideration at 1. To support this ground, respondent reiterates an argument previously made concerning the solicitation's procedure for evaluating proposals and further disagrees with the Board's prior decision by setting forth an interpretation of various portions of the solicitation. Respondent's arguments in support of both grounds for reconsideration are "mere disagreement[s] 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. Additionally, with regard to the second ground which alleged that the Board failed to consider all parts of the solicitation, respondent's argument is reinterpretation of old evidence, as the solicitation was submitted as an exhibit in the protest file. Thus, under the standard expressed in Electronic Data, and pursuant to Rules 32 and 33, respondent's arguments do not warrant reconsideration of our original decision. Decision Respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge We concur: ______________________ ______________________ DONALD W. DEVINE CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge