March 5, 1991
 
        
   Protest of                       :
   Unit Data Service Corporation    : GSBCA No. 10775-P-R 
   5240 N. Otto Avenue              :
   Rosemont, IL  60018              :
                                    :
   Solicitation No. RFP 101-10-90   : Motion for reconsideration
                                    :  granted
                                    :
   Appearances for Protester,       : John D. Quinn, Esquire
   Unit Data Service Corporation    : Stephen Sale, Esquire
                                    : Fehrenbacher, Sale, Quinn 
                                    :   & Deese, P.C.
                                    : 910 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
                                    : Suite 500
                                    : Washington, DC  20006
                                    :
   Appearances for Respondent,      : Leonard Malamud, Esquire
   Department of Veterans Affairs   : James Petersen, Esquire
                                    : William Sexton, Esquire
                                    : Office of the General Counsel
                                    : Department of Veterans Affairs
                                    : 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
                                    : Washington, DC  20420
 
 
                 Opinion by Administrative Judge Neill
 
        On November  6, 1990, we  issued a decision denying  in part
   and dismissing  in part this  protest.  Unit Data  Service Corp.,
   GSBCA  No. 10775-P (Nov.  6, 1990), 1990 BPD    374.  The protest
   concerned award of a  contract to Systems Resources,  Inc. (SRI),
   by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  The contract was for
   maintenance  and  repair  of   automatic  data  processing  (ADP)
   equipment located at a VA data  center.  Protester has asked that
   we  reconsider  our decision.    Respondent  has filed  a  formal
   opposition to the request.  At protester's request, we authorized
   a reply to that opposition and likewise authorized respondent  to
   file  additional comments  on protester's  reply  to the  initial
   opposition.  After review of all submissions and consideration of
   the arguments made, we grant the request for reconsideration.  
 
                               Background
 
        The  procurement  which  is  the  subject  of  this  protest
   involved four proposals from three offerors.   Two proposals were
   submitted by  SRI.   SRI's  alternate proposal  was ranked  first
   among  the  four  proposals.   SRI's  other  proposal  was ranked
   second.   A third  proposal, submitted  by Computer  Specialists,
   Inc. (CSI), was  ranked third.   Protester's proposal was  ranked
   fourth.  
 
 
        Shortly  after the protest  was filed, respondent  moved for
   its dismissal on the ground  that protester lacked standing as an
   interested party.   We denied the motion for two reasons.  First,
   we recognized  that protester, in its initial  complaint, had put
   the  ranking  of all  offerors  in  issue  by claiming  that  the
   technical evaluation was incorrectly done.  Second, we noted that
   protester, in an  amendment to the protest, had  alleged that the
   intermediate  proposals did not  comply with the  requirements of
   the  RFP.  Unit Data Service Corp.,  GSBCA No. 10775-P (Sept. 21,
   1990), 1990 BPD   281. 
 
        On  the  day  of  the hearing  for  this  protest, protester
   amended  its  complaint   yet  another  time  and   withdrew  the
   allegation  that the  technical  evaluation had  been incorrectly
   done.   The  ranking of  offerors,  therefore, was  no longer  in
   issue.  As  a result, we  looked to protester  to prove that  the
   intermediate  proposals did not  comply with the  requirements of
   the RFP.  In  our decision of  November 6, however, we  concluded
   that protester failed to meet this burden.  We, therefore, denied
   protester's  allegations   relating  to  the  CSI   proposal  and
   consequently  concluded  that  protester  lacked  status  as   an
   interested  party  to   press  the  remaining  elements   in  its
   complaint.   We  dismissed  these remaining  counts  for lack  of
   jurisdiction.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        In requesting reconsideration, protester admits that it  did
   not  focus its testimony  and argument on  the CSI proposal.   It
   argues, however, that this was "largely because  it believed that
   the issue  of standing  had  been resolved  before the  hearing."
   Protester's  Reply  to  Respondent's  Opposition  to  Motion  for
   Reconsideration at 18.  
 
        Protester's  argument  that  the  question  of  standing was
   definitively resolved with  our decision of September  11 denying
   respondent's motion  to dismiss is  not a  new argument.   It was
   made  by   protester  in  its   motion  to  strike   portions  of
   respondent's posthearing brief.  We reject it now just  as we did
   when we denied the motion to strike.  Our denial of  respondent's
   original motion to  dismiss for lack of standing  was premised on
   the  assumption that  protester would  make good  its promise  to
   prove  that intermediate offers were noncompliant and/or that the
   actual ranking of offers was incorrect.  Any  mistaken assumption
   that this ruling  somehow exonerated protester from  proving what
   it  promised to prove in opposing the motion to dismiss is simply
   without a rational basis.  
        Protester also argues that it narrowed the focus of its case
   to  the  inadequacies of  the  successful SRI  proposal  not only
   because  it considered the  standing issue had  been definitively
   decided in its favor, but because of what the Board did  and said
   in ruling on its discovery requests.
 
 
        According  to protester,  the  Board repeatedly  denied  its
   requests  to depose  all of  the  subcontractors of  SRI and  the
   subcontractors  of other offerors.   (Protester sought  to depose
   these subcontractors in  order to determine if  their anticipated
   labor costs were in excess of those permitted for  subcontractors
   of small business concerns.)  The Board  is said to have approved
   only  a request to  depose representatives of  Storage Technology
   Corporation (STC), which was responsible for seventy-five percent
   of the subcontracting on SRI's successful proposal.  According to
   protester,   the  Board,  in  a  prehearing  conference  held  on
   September 18, ruled that  UDS, instead of obtaining  discovery of
   such information  first-hand  from  other  subcontractors,  could
   impute the  personnel  costs of  one subcontractor,  STC, to  all
   other proposed subcontractors.   This ruling is said  not to have
   been  limited to  performance  under any  single  proposal.   See
   Motion for Reconsideration at 5-7.
 
        It  would appear  that  on  this point  there  is a  genuine
   misunderstanding  between protester on the one hand and the Board
   and respondent on the other.   Protester did in fact  request the
   Board to  issue a  number of subpoenas  to subcontractors  of the
   various  offerors on  this  procurement.    These  requests  were
   initially  denied.   Anticipating objections  from these  various
   third  parties, the  Board directed  protester first to  take the
   deposition of  the successful offeror,  namely, SRI, and  to make
   inquiry of SRI  regarding its subcontracting arrangements.   Once
   that  deposition was  complete,  the  Board  agreed  to  consider
   requests to take the deposition of individual subcontractors. 
 
        Once  the  SRI  deposition was  complete,  protester  sought
   permission to depose STC and other subcontractor representatives.
   During the prehearing conference held on September 18, the  Board
   asked if it  was really necessary to take the  depositions of the
   other  subcontractors if STC,  the subcontractor  responsible for
   seventy-five  percent  of the  equipment in  question, was  to be
   deposed  -- particularly if the data provided by STC was found to
   be more or  less representative of what one would expect from the
   other subcontractors. 
 
        This inquiry on the Board's part was made in  the context of
   the SRI proposal which was the subject of discussion at the time.
   The   Board's  comment   was  not   intended  to  apply   to  the
   subcontractors  for all other  offerors.  Counsel  for respondent
   apparently understood  our inquiry  in the  same narrow  context.
   Respondent's  Response  to  Protester's  Reply  to   Respondent's
   Opposition  to Motion  for Reconsideration  at  15.   Counsel for
   protester  obviously  did  not.    The  text  of  the  conference
   memorandum  does not expressly  preclude the interpretation given
   to  our words  by counsel  for  protester.   We, therefore,  must
   conclude  that there was potential for the misunderstanding which
   counsel for protester now alleges to have occurred.  
 
        Admittedly, protester's lack of concern with the adequacy of
   the  intermediate  offers is  attributable in  great part  to its
   position  regarding  the  alleged definitive  resolution  of  all
   questions regarding standing in our decision of September 11.  We
   are  convinced, however, that the failure to undertake additional
   discovery of CSI, its subcontractors, and other subcontractors of
   SRI, was at  least attributable in part to  a mistaken assumption
   on the part  of counsel for protester.  This  assumption was that
   the Board would consider information developed on the labor costs
   of STC as possibly representative  of the anticipated labor costs
   of the subcontractors of all other offerors on the procurement in
   question.   We deem  this to  be a reasonable  mistake under  the
   circumstances and one, therefore, which justifies reconsideration
   of a Board decision pursuant to Rule 32. 
 
                                Decision
 
        Protester's  request for  reconsideration  is granted.   The
   record for this  protest will be reopened in this  case, but only
   to permit the parties to submit  documentary and/or oral evidence
   and   argument  relating  to  the  anticipated  labor  costs  for
   subcontracting  on all proposals.   An order  calling for further
   proceedings in accordance  with this decision  will be issued  to
   the parties pursuant to Rule 32(b).   
 
 
                                      _________________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Administrative Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
   ____________________________
   LEONARD J. SUCHANEK 
   Chief Administrative Judge 
 
 
 
   ____________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
   Administrative Judge