Capital Brand Group, LLC (47PD0319Q0003)

B-418656.2 Jul 09, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Capital Brand Group, LLC (CBG), a small disadvantaged business of Silver Spring, Maryland, requests that we reconsider our decision in Capital Brand Group, LLC, B-418656, Apr. 24, 2020 (unpublished decision), dismissing as untimely the company's challenge to the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PD0319Q0003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to holders of GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 03FAC-facilities maintenance and management, for operations and maintenance services at the Elijah B. Prettyman United States Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex in Washington, D.C. CBG argues that our Office's decision not to invoke the "significant issue exception" to our timeliness rules was in error. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.   Decision Matter of:  Capital Brand Group, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-418656.2 Date:  July 9, 2020 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., and Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the requester. Robert T. Notigan, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a challenge to the terms of the solicitation as untimely is denied where the requesting party has not shown that the decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification. DECISION   Capital Brand Group, LLC (CBG), a small disadvantaged business of Silver Spring, Maryland, requests that we reconsider our decision in Capital Brand Group, LLC, B-418656, Apr. 24, 2020 (unpublished decision), dismissing as untimely the company’s challenge to the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PD0319Q0003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to holders of GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 03FAC-facilities maintenance and management, for operations and maintenance services at the Elijah B. Prettyman United States Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex in Washington, D.C.  CBG argues that our Office’s decision not to invoke the “significant issue exception” to our timeliness rules was in error. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND CBG is the current holder of a GSA contract, awarded on August 1, 2018, on a sole-source basis under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program, for operations and maintenance services at the courthouse and annex.[1]  Protest at 3.  The RFQ here was issued on May 30, 2019.  RFQ at 1.[2]  The solicitation indicated that it was set aside for small businesses, but was not part of the 8(a) program.  Id.  Although CBG does not hold the FSS 03FAC schedule and therefore could not directly access the RFQ, the agency provided CBG with a copy of the solicitation on June 11.  Protest at 6; see also CBG Resp. to GSA Req. for Dismissal, exh. A, CBG Email to SBA, June 12, 2019.  The RFQ had a closing date for the receipt of quotations of July 1.[3] On April 10, 2020, CBG filed a protest with our Office contending that the RFQ improperly solicited quotations for the same operations and maintenance services currently performed by CBG under the 8(a) program, and that GSA had removed the requirement from the 8(a) program in violation of applicable SBA regulations.  Protest at 7-8.  CBG also asserted that its protest was timely because it was filed within 10 days of when CBG learned of GSA’s position that the work under the RFQ was considered a new requirement and was never under the 8(a) program.  Id. at 2, citing exh. A, GSA Letter to Rep. John Sarbanes, Mar. 30, 2020 (GSA’s response to a congressional inquiry regarding CBG). On April 13, the agency requested that the CBG protest be dismissed as untimely under 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) of our Bid Protest Regulations, because it challenged an alleged impropriety in the solicitation that should have been protested before the initial closing time for submission of quotations.  GSA Req. for Dismissal at 1. On April 16, in response to the agency dismissal request, CBG contended that it could not have anticipated that GSA would ignore the requirement to receive SBA approval before removing the requirement from the 8(a) program, and thus timeliness should be measured from the date when CBG learned that GSA considered the FSS procurement to be a new requirement.  CBG Resp. to GSA Req.