Chase Supply, Inc- dba Chase Defense Partners (FA8532-22-R-0001)

B-420902.2 Nov 23, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chase Supply, Inc., of Hampton, Virginia, a small business, doing business as Chase Defense Partners, requests reconsideration of our decision in Chase Supply, Inc., B-420902, Sept. 6, 2022 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed its protest of the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8532-22-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for a universal loadbank and two ground power units (GPUs). Chase seeks reconsideration of our decision because of what it contends are material factual errors. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: Chase Supply, Inc., d/b/a Chase Defense Partners--Reconsideration File: B-420902.2 Date: November 23, 2022 Fred Fielding and David C. Weeda, Chase Supply, Inc., the requester. Col. Frank Yoon, Maj. Ashley M. Ruhe, Michael J. Farr, Esq., and Maj. Erik T. Fuqua, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, 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 requester has not shown that the original decision contained an error of fact or law that would justify reconsideration. DECISION Chase Supply, Inc., of Hampton, Virginia, a small business, doing business as Chase Defense Partners, requests reconsideration of our decision in Chase Supply, Inc., B‑420902, Sept. 6, 2022 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed its protest of the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. FA8532-22-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for a universal loadbank and two ground power units (GPUs). Chase seeks reconsideration of our decision because of what it contends are material factual errors. We deny the request. BACKGROUND Our decision dismissing Chase’s protest was based on its failure to show that it was an interested party with respect to the contract at issue, and therefore it was not eligible to file a protest challenging the terms of the RFP. The decision described the protest as challenging a requirement in the RFP that the GPUs include brand name or equal cable assemblies as one of numerous subcomponents. We noted that Chase described itself as a “rep and distributor for Skyko” and the protester contended that the brand-name-or-equal requirement for the cable subcomponent “arbitrarily eliminate[s] Chase’s [cable] supplier,” Skyko. We also noted that Chase acknowledged that Skyko did not manufacture complete GPUs, but only the cable subcomponent. Chase Supply, Inc., supra at 2. Our decision then considered a request for dismissal submitted by the Air Force, which, among other things, argued that Chase was not an interested party because it “appears to be merely a distributor of a subcomponent,” rather than a prospective offeror of GPUs. We agreed and dismissed the protest after concluding that “Chase did not, and could not, submit a proposal for the procurement at issue,” and that neither it nor Skyko could supply complete GPUs. Id. at 1. After Chase received our decision dismissing its protest, the firm filed this request for reconsideration, which argues that the decision was based on errors of fact and law. We address each of Chase’s arguments below. DISCUSSION Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a request for reconsideration must contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the initial decision is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered by our Office. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a). Information not previously considered means information that was not available when the initial protest was filed. Norfolk Dredging Co.--Recon., B-236259.2, Oct. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD ¶ 405. As discussed below, Chase’s request does not meet this standard. First, Chase argues that our decision failed to recognize that its protest arguments were made on behalf of Skyko and that Chase is “an agent for Skyko.” Request for Reconsideration at 1. Chase contends that we should therefore have recognized Skyko’s status as an interested party. We disagree. Even if we consider the protest as being brought by Skyko, and filed by Chase as its agent, dismissal was proper. As noted above, Chase acknowledged during the protest that Skyko did not manufacture complete GPUs, but only the cable subcomponent. Skyko would not have been an interested party for essentially the same reason as Chase; that is, neither Chase nor Skyko is capable of competing for the prime contract being awarded under this RFP. As noted in our decision, by statute our Office only has statutory jurisdiction to consider a protest by an “interested party.” 31 U.S.C. § 3551(1), (2) (definitions of “protest” and “interested party”).