22nd Century Technologies, Inc. (SP4709-21-Q-0020)

B-420510.3 Aug 10, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., of Mclean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., B-420510, B-420510.2, May 4, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 127, in which we denied its protest against the issuance of a task order to TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, by the Defense Logistics Agency under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4709-21-Q-0020, issued to acquire information technology support services. 22nd Century argues that we erred in dismissing certain of its allegations. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: 22nd Century Technologies, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-420510.3 Date: August 10, 2022 Jon D. Levin, Esq., W. Brad English, Esq., and Emily J. Chancey, Esq., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, for the protester. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where requesting party fails either to show that our original decision contained errors of fact or law, or present new information not previously considered that would warrant reversal or modification of our original decision. DECISION 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., of Mclean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in 22nd Century Technologies, Inc., B-420510, B-420510.2, May 4, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 127, in which we denied its protest against the issuance of a task order to TekSynap Corporation, of Reston, Virginia, by the Defense Logistics Agency under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP4709-21-Q-0020, issued to acquire information technology support services. 22nd Century argues that we erred in dismissing certain of its allegations. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND In its original protest, 22nd Century argued that the agency misevaluated quotations under certain of the solicitation’s non-price evaluation factors, specifically key personnel, past performance and technical approach.[1] We either denied or dismissed all of 22nd Century’s allegations, concluding that the agency’s evaluation of the quotations was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the RFQ and applicable statutes and regulations. 22nd Century’s request for reconsideration is confined to its allegations relating to the evaluation of quotations under the technical approach evaluation subfactor. In its initial protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations under that subfactor, 22nd Century identified over a dozen separate sections of the performance work statement (PWS), and argued that the agency had erred in failing to assign separate strengths to its quotation under each of these PWS elements.[2] The agency responded that 22nd Century’s protest failed to show that its evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ or applicable statutes and regulations, and maintained that the allegations amounted to no more than disagreement with the agency’s assignment of strengths to the quotations. In responding to the agency’s report, 22nd Century made no further mention of the overwhelming majority of its allegations. Specifically, 22nd Century’s comments included a listing of 11 of the PWS elements that it had referenced in its initial protest, but the firm did not make any substantive argument in connection with eight of these 11 original challenges to the agency’s evaluation.[3] To the extent that its comments could be described as substantive, they were confined to just three of its original allegations. As to those three allegations, its comments included only a table that paired verbatim passages from the PWS with verbatim passages from its quotation. In a word, 22nd Century failed to comment at all in connection with most of its allegations, and merely reproduced the contents of its protest--without elaboration--as to its remaining three allegations.[4] In our decision responding to this aspect of 22nd Century’s protest, we dismissed the eight allegations for which the firm provided no substantive response as abandoned. 22nd Century Technologies, Inc, supra. at 8-9. In addition, we denied 22nd Century’s remaining three allegations, concluding that they amounted to no more than disagreement with the agency’s evaluation, and finding that the firm had failed to show that the evaluation was unreasonable on inconsistent with the terms of the RFQ. Id. at 9. After receiving our decision, 22nd Century filed its request for reconsideration. DISCUSSION 22nd Century argues that we erred in dismissing as abandoned the eight allegations upon which it failed to comment.