reopened discussions during the original procurement, Data General would not have known of IBM’s lower price and therefore would have had no reason to reduce its own price. Although following the original award, Data General may have obtained additional information regarding IBM’s price, Data General presented no evidence — not even a company executive affidavit — that at any time it would have reduced its price to compete more effectively with IBM. The unsupported assertion in Data General’s reply brief that “Data General had every incentive to lower its proposal price to the maximum extent possible” is inconsistent with its admission there that it “pursued a strategy of providing a higher performance solution at a higher cost.” See Caelum Research Corp., 95-2 B.C.A (CCH) at 138,263 (<HOLDING>); In re Maritime Management, Inc., B-260311.2,
holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion holding that a plan administrator cannot support its argument on appeal with a fact not relied upon in its initial coverage determination holding that since the jury was prejudiced with respect to its award of damages it cannot be said that its finding of liability was free from prejudice holding of no prejudice based in part on fact that the protester had not demonstrated that it could have improved its proposal in any material way so as to raise its score or increase its advantage holding that loss to bank occurred without regard to its possible remedies when its funds in fact were diverted  through the fraud and dishonesty of its treasurer and that the bank could sue on its bond without proof that it had then sustained some actual defined loss not merely nominal as the result of the transaction in question