Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC (36C10B20Q0026)

B-418367.8 Sep 22, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC, a small business of Laguna Hills, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC, B-418367.4, June 1, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ __, denying its protest challenging the issuance of a delivery order to Colossal Contracting, LLC, a small business, of Annapolis, Maryland. The agency issued the delivery order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B20Q0026, which was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for computer hardware, software, incidental services, and components. We deny the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-418367.8 Date:  September 22, 2020 G. Matthew Koehl, Esq., Gary J. Campbell, Esq., and Lidiya Kurin, Esq., Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP, for the protester. Thomas K. David, Esq., Kenneth Brody, Esq., and Katherine A. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for Colossal Contracting, LLC, the intervenor. Mellany Alio, Esq., Reza Behinia, Esq., and Mary G. Courtney, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of our prior decision denying the protester’s protest is denied where, even assuming that our prior decision contained certain errors, any such errors were immaterial as there is a sufficient alternative basis on which we would have denied the protest that is supported by the underlying record. DECISION Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC, a small business of Laguna Hills, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in Cynergy Professional Systems, LLC, B‑418367.4, June 1, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ __, denying its protest challenging the issuance of a delivery order to Colossal Contracting, LLC, a small business, of Annapolis, Maryland.  The agency issued the delivery order under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B20Q0026, which was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for computer hardware, software, incidental services, and components. Cynergy primarily alleged that the VA improperly excluded its quotation from consideration for award without reopening discussions to address a deficiency first identified as a result of a post-award protest challenging the agency’s initial award to Cynergy.  The protester also alleged that the awardee failed to comply with several material RFQ requirements.  In denying Cynergy’s protest, we concluded that the VA’s initial exchanges with offerors did not rise to the level of discussions; therefore, the VA had no duty to conduct further exchanges with offerors as part of the agency’s corrective action.  Additionally, because we found that the agency had reasonably evaluated Cynergy’s quotation as technically unacceptable, Cynergy was not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation. On reconsideration, Cynergy primarily asserts that our prior decision materially erred when it concluded that the VA’s exchanges with offerors did not constitute discussions.  According to the protester, had our Office correctly found that the exchanges at issue constituted discussions, we would have concluded that the VA was required to reopen discussions with Cynergy.  This is so because the deficiency, which ultimately led to its exclusion, existed in its initial quotation, but the deficiency was never raised with Cynergy during the round of discussions the protester argues the agency conducted with offerors.  Having failed to disclose this deficiency to the protester during the discussions process, Cynergy argues its discussions were inherently defective and not meaningful.  According to Cynergy, the only way for the agency to correct this error was for the agency to reopen discussions with Cynergy as part of its corrective action.  See Req. for Reconsideration at 22 (citing our decision in DevTech Sys., Inc., B‑284860.2, Dec.