Vysnova Partners, Inc. (47QFCA21R0058)

B-420654.4 Oct 25, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vysnova Partners, Inc., a small business of Landover, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in Vysnova Partners, Inc., B-420654 et al., July 7, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 177, in which we denied a challenge to the agency's elimination of the protester's proposal from competition and dismissed, as untimely, a supplemental argument raised by the protester for the first time in its comments on the agency's report responding to the protest. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Vysnova Partners, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-420654.4 Date: October 25, 2022 Eric A. Valle, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., and Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the requester. James C. Braswell, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision denying initial protest and dismissing supplemental protest as untimely is denied because the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains errors of fact or law that would warrant reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Vysnova Partners, Inc., a small business of Landover, Maryland, requests reconsideration of our decision in Vysnova Partners, Inc., B-420654 et al., July 7, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 177, in which we denied a challenge to the agency’s elimination of the protester’s proposal from competition and dismissed, as untimely, a supplemental argument raised by the protester for the first time in its comments on the agency’s report responding to the protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND In its protest, Vysnova challenged the agency’s rejection of the firm’s proposal based on what Vysnova contended was the agency’s “erroneous finding that the proposal failed to comply with certain material requirements of the [solicitation] because it did not include ‘supporting cost/price documentation for all proposed subcontractors, including total value of proposed subcontract.’” Protest at 1. Specifically, Vysnova argued that the agency’s finding was erroneous because the solicitation “did not prohibit (and, thus, permitted) the use of unpriced subcontractors, as Vysnova proposed.” Id. see also at 9‑10. Alternatively, Vysnova maintained “there was a latent ambiguity in the [solicitation] regarding the use of unpriced subcontractors, and the [a]gency abused its discretion in failing to seek clarification from Vysnova regarding the five unpriced subcontractors it proposed.” Id. at 1-2, 10-11. In our decision, we denied Vysnova’s challenge to the elimination of the firm’s proposal from the competition because the record reflected that Vysnova’s proposal failed to provide required cost/price documentation for certain unpriced subcontractors. Vysnova Partners, Inc., supra at 1, 4-6. We also denied Vysnova’s contention that the agency unreasonably failed to engage in clarifications to address the missing cost/price documentation, finding that there was no requirement for the agency to engage in clarifications. Id. at 1, 7. In our decision, we explained that, in order to make its proposals acceptable, Vysnova would have been required to submit a revised proposal, and that such a “material revision to the protester’s proposal would have required the agency to conduct discussions, rather than clarifications.” Id. at 7. In its comments on the agency’s report responding to the protest, Vysnova argued that the cost information allegedly missing from its proposal was not material to the agency’s evaluation because the solicitation limited the requirement for subcontractor cost information to proposed subcontracts that represented more than ten percent of the total contract value.[1] Comments & 1st Supp. Protest at 6. We dismissed this argument as untimely. Vysnova Partners, Inc., supra at 6 n.4. We noted that Vysnova was notified of the basis of elimination of its proposal from competition--missing required cost/price information for unpriced subcontractors--on March 28, but raised this materiality line of argument for the first time in its May 9 comments, rather than in its initial protest. Id. As this argument was not raised until more than ten days after Vysnova knew or should have known the basis of its protest, we concluded it was untimely, and declined to consider it further. Id.; 4 C.F.R.