Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (1605C5-21-Q-00034)

B-420021.4 Jan 11, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC, B-420021 et al., Oct. 26, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 351, denying its protest challenging the issuance of a federal supply schedule order to Safal Partners, LLC, a small business of Houston, Texas, under request for quotations No. 1605C5-21-Q-00034, which was issued by the Department of Labor, for operation of the National Veterans' Technical Assistance Center. In its protest and supplemental protests, MSG challenged the agency's evaluation of its quotation and Safal's quotation, and the resulting award decision. MSG alleges that our prior decision materially erred when, after denying its challenges to the evaluation of its own quotation, we determined that the protester was not an interested party to purse its objections to the evaluation of Safal's quotation or the resulting award decision. For the reasons that follow, we deny the request for reconsideration because it fails to demonstrate that our prior decision contained material errors of fact or law. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-420021.4 Date:  January 11, 2022 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Patrick T. Rothwell, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Christine C. Fries, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Edward V. Arnold, Esq., and Bret C. Marfut, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Safal Partners, Inc., the intervenor. Virginia Ackerman, Esq., Jose Otero, Esq., and Joshua L. Caplan, Esq., Department of Labor, 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 prior decision denying a protest is denied where the requester does not show that the prior decision contains material errors of fact or law that warrant reversal of the decision. DECISION Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC (MSG), a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in Manhattan Strategy Group, LLC, B-420021 et al., Oct. 26, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 351, denying its protest challenging the issuance of a federal supply schedule order to Safal Partners, LLC, a small business of Houston, Texas, under request for quotations No. 1605C5-21-Q-00034, which was issued by the Department of Labor, for operation of the National Veterans’ Technical Assistance Center.  In its protest and supplemental protests, MSG challenged the agency’s evaluation of its quotation and Safal’s quotation, and the resulting award decision.  MSG alleges that our prior decision materially erred when, after denying its challenges to the evaluation of its own quotation, we determined that the protester was not an interested party to purse its objections to the evaluation of Safal’s quotation or the resulting award decision. For the reasons that follow, we deny the request for reconsideration because it fails to demonstrate that our prior decision contained material errors of fact or law. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must set out the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered.  4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a).  We will reverse a decision upon reconsideration only where the requesting party demonstrates that the decision contains a material error of fact or law.  AeroSage, LLC--Recon., B-417529.3, Oct. 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 351 at 2 n.2.; Department of Justice; Hope Village, Inc.--Recon., B-414342.5, B-414342.6, May 21, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 195 at 4. Relevant here, the agency received and evaluated the three final quotations as follows:   MSG Safal Offeror A Technical Capability Acceptable Exceeds Acceptable Key Personnel Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Past Performance Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk Proposed Price $7,186,561 $5,823,034 $5,775,072   AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Decision, at 4 (prices rounded to nearest whole dollar). The source selection official determined that the quotation submitted by MSG was the “least competitive among the three offerors” because: With a total price of $7,186,561.18, MSG’[s] quote is about 24.4 percent and 23.4 percent higher than that of [Offeror A’s] and Safal’s quotes, respectively.  Despite the higher price, MSG has the same ratings for Technical Capability, Key Personnel, and Past Performance as [Offeror A] and a lower rating in Technical Capability compared to Safal. Id.