ASG Solutions Corporation- dba American Systems Group (N3319124C0006)

B-422558.2 Feb 26, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group (ASG), a small business of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in American Systems Group, B-422558, June 13, 2024 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed ASG's protest because the protester, as a suspended contractor, was not an interested party to maintain the protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group--Reconsideration File:B-422558.2 Date: February 26, 2025 Ritobrata Banerjee, for the requester. Kevin E. Bolin, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 based on change in requester’s status as a potentially interested party is denied where the change occurred after issuance of our decision dismissing protest because requester was not an interested party at the time the protest was filed. DECISION ASG Solutions Corporation d/b/a American Systems Group (ASG), a small business of San Diego, California, requests reconsideration of our decision in American Systems Group, B-422558, June 13, 2024 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed ASG’s protest because the protester, as a suspended contractor, was not an interested party to maintain the protest. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND In its protest filed with our Office on May 3, 2024, ASG challenged the agency’s issuance of a sole-source purchase order to Futron Inc., of Woodbridge, Virginia, for installation energy management support services. Protest at 1. Specifically, ASG argued the Navy misclassified the procurement “as a ‘Commercial Service’ instead of [using] the Mandatory Navy Contracting Vehicle for Non-Commercial Services--Seaport NxG in accordance with (IAW) FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] 33.104” to compete the work as “it always has done” in the past. [1] Id. at 1, 3. We dismissed the protest because we found that ASG was not an interested party to maintain the protest. American Systems Group, supra at 1. Our decision noted that 12 days after ASG filed the protest, “the protester and its owner and president each were suspended from federal government contracting for an indefinite period and subjected to proposed debarment.” Id. (citing Req. for Dismissal at 1, exh. 1). We explained that, under the Competition in Contracting Act and our Bid Protest Regulations, only an interested party may protest a federal procurement, and that a protester is not an interested party where it would not be in line for contract award were its protest to be sustained. Id. Our decision further explained that because “a proposed debarred contractor generally is not eligible for the award of a federal contract . . . such a protester would not be in line for contract award even if its protest were sustained.” Id. Although, ASG represented it had “appealed the termination for default that prompted the suspension and proposed debarment,” we found that “the suspension nevertheless remains in place pending the protester’s appeal.” Id. at 2. We concluded that “[t]he protester therefore remains suspended and ineligible for award,” and we dismissed the protest because ASG was “not an interested party to challenge the contract award” to Futron. Id. DISCUSSION In requesting reconsideration, ASG represents that it is no longer suspended or debarred as of November 19, 2024.[2] Req. for Recon. at 1. Thus, ASG maintains, the firm is an interested party that “can be awarded the contract in the event the protest was sustained.” Id. Based on this change in the firm’s status as a potentially interested party, ASG asks that we rescind our prior dismissal and reopen the protest to be decided on the merits. Id. Under our 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). Information not previously considered does not mean, however, information that arises from events that took place after we issued our decision. InSpace 21 LLC, B-410852.4, Apr. 3, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 124 at 5. The facts here are uncontroverted. When we issued our decision on June 13, 2024, ASG was listed on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) as an excluded party that was “ineligible” for any new orders or awards. Req. for Dismissal exh. 1, SAM.gov Exclusion Listing at 1-2. As a result--and in accordance with applicable procurement laws and regulations--we concluded ASG’s ineligibility for any new contract awards meant the firm was not an interested party to maintain its protest.