Summary

A firm requested reconsideration of the denial of its protest against a Bureau of the Public Debt contract award for microfilm readers. GAO had held that: (1) the Bureau properly justified a Federal Supply Schedule award to other than the lowest-priced offerer on the basis that the awardee offered better maintenance services; and (2) the Bureau's purchase of the readers with yearend funds did not constitute an improper fracturing of its actual requirements to avoid the Schedule's maximum order limitation. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that: (1) GAO ignored the fact that the Bureau did not evaluate the offered products on an equal basis; (2) the better maintenance services that the awardee offered did not constitute sufficient justification for the award, since the Bureau never established its actual maintenance needs; and (3) GAO misapplied precedent and applicable regulations in determining that the Bureau did not improperly split its requirements. GAO held that: (1) the Bureau reported that it used the same criteria to evaluate all of the offered products, even though it evaluated the awardee's product over a much shorter period of time; (2) the Bureau reasonably determined that better maintenance services justified the award; (3) while the Bureau expected to obtain more readers at some unspecified future time, it did not improperly split its requirements to evade the Schedule's maximum order limitation; and (4) the Bureau used its available procurement funds properly. Accordingly, the original decision was affirmed.