American Tech Solutions, LLC (FA3002-22-R-0026)

B-421585.5 Jul 25, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Tech Solutions, LLC, a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in American Tech Solutions, LLC, B-421585.3, B-421585.4, May 31, 2023 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed the protest as academic. The protester contends that our Office erred in dismissing its protest as academic because the agency's proposed corrective action does not address all of the allegations raised in the underlying 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: American Tech Solutions, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-421585.5 Date: July 25, 2023 Abram J. Pafford, Esq., Jason M. Vespoli, Esq., Timothy J. Whittle, Esq., and Jessica L. Nejberger, Esq., McGuire Woods LLP, for the protester. Colonel Frank Yoon and Major James B. Leighton, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision dismissing protest as academic is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION American Tech Solutions, LLC, a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in American Tech Solutions, LLC, B‑421585.3, B‑421585.4, May 31, 2023 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed the protest as academic. The protester contends that our Office erred in dismissing its protest as academic because the agency’s proposed corrective action does not address all of the allegations raised in the underlying protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The protester filed initial and supplemental protests with our Office challenging the Department of the Air Force’s issuance of a task order to Obsidian Global LLC under fair opportunity proposal request No. FA3002‑22‑R‑0026 for services and equipment to sustain and deploy graduate/training integration management system software and architecture. See American Tech Solutions, LLC, B‑421585.3, B‑421585.4, May 31, 2023 (unpublished decision). The protester challenged the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical factor, the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the past performance factor, and the best‑value tradeoff decision. See id. On May 30, 2023, the due date for the supplemental agency report, the agency informed our Office that it had decided to take corrective action, to include reevaluating the offerors’ technical proposals and making a new best‑value tradeoff decision. See id. In response to our subsequent request for clarification, the agency stated that it did not intend to reevaluate the offerors’ past performance proposal volumes. See Clarification of Notice of Corrective Action. The agency stated that its intention was to reevaluate the offerors’ technical proposal volumes and to conduct a new best‑value tradeoff using the previous evaluations of price and past performance, as well as the new technical evaluations. See id. The agency further stated that it reserved the right to take any other corrective action it deemed appropriate. See id. We then dismissed the protest as academic on May 31. See American Tech Solutions, LLC, B‑421585.3, B‑421585.4, May 31, 2023 (unpublished decision). Later on May 31, the protester filed this request for reconsideration of our decision dismissing its protest as academic. DISCUSSION Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must show that our prior decision contains either errors of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a); TEN21 Capital, LLC--Recon., B‑418906.4, June 23, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 235 at 2. Here, the protester’s request does not demonstrate that our decision contains an error of fact or law, and does not present new information warranting reversal or modification. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the request does not meet our standard for reconsideration. The protester argues that our dismissal of its protest as academic was based on legal error. In particular, the protester contends that, because the agency has not committed to reevaluating past performance, the proposed corrective action does not moot the protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the past performance factor. Req. for Recon. at 2. Accordingly, the protester argues, it was error to dismiss the protest as academic. Id.