Mission Analytics, LLC (1333ND24QNB770135)

B-422841.2 Apr 18, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Analytics, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision, Mission Analytics, LLC, B-422841, Sept. 6, 2024 (unpublished decision), dismissing its protest challenging the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1333ND24QNB770135, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) for a direct view light-emitting diodes (LED) display system. Mission Analytics argued that the agency improperly omitted Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.204-22, Alternative Line Item Proposal, from the RFQ. We dismissed the protest because NIST demonstrated that Mission Analytics's allegations were incorrect as a matter of law and did not constitute a valid basis of protest in that FAR provision 52.204-22 is not a required FAR provision under FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The requester argues our decision contained errors of law that warrant modification of our prior decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mission Analytics, LLC‑‑Reconsideration File: B-422841.2 Date: April 18, 2025 Michael F. Winters for the requester. Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains material errors of fact or law. DECISION Mission Analytics, LLC, a small business of Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision, Mission Analytics, LLC, B-422841, Sept. 6, 2024 (unpublished decision), dismissing its protest challenging the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1333ND24QNB770135, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) for a direct view light-emitting diodes (LED) display system. Mission Analytics argued that the agency improperly omitted Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.204-22, Alternative Line Item Proposal, from the RFQ. We dismissed the protest because NIST demonstrated that Mission Analytics’s allegations were incorrect as a matter of law and did not constitute a valid basis of protest in that FAR provision 52.204-22 is not a required FAR provision under FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The requester argues our decision contained errors of law that warrant modification of our prior decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The RFQ sought the provision of an LED system with specific requirements. Req. for Dismissal at 1. The solicitation, a fixed-price contract to supply commercial items, was issued in accordance with FAR part 12 and contained all required clauses in accordance with FAR section 12.301, including FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors‑Commercial Products and Commercial Services, required by FAR subsection 12.301(b). Id. Prior to the deadline for receipt of quotations, Mission Analytics filed an agency-level protest with NIST that challenged the terms of the solicitation and argued that FAR provision 52.204-22 was improperly omitted from the solicitation. Protest at 1‑2, 11-12. The agency did not amend the solicitation or toll the deadline for receipt of quotations in response to the agency-level protest. Id. at 2. Mission Analytics then timely filed a protest with our Office. In its protest, Mission Analytics argued that the solicitation was required to include FAR provision 52.204-22 because FAR section 4.1008 directs agencies to include the provision at 52.204-22, Alternative Line Item Proposal, in all solicitations.[1] Protest at 1. FAR provision 52.204-22 invites vendors to “propose alternative line items for which bids, proposals, or quotes are requested,” and in Mission Analytics’s view, this was different from FAR provision 52.212-1, which allows “MULTIPLE offers, but makes no reference to SINGLE offers.” Protest at 1 (citing FAR provision 52.204-22(a)). Mission Analytics argued that “the absence of [FAR] 52.204-22 created a patent ambiguity” in the solicitation. Id. NIST requested dismissal of the protest prior to the deadline for submitting the agency report and argued, among other things, that FAR provision 52.204-22 is not required for fixed-price commercial item contracts solicited pursuant to FAR part 12. Req. for Dismissal at 2. The agency noted that vendors were not precluded from submitting quotations with alternative line items because the solicitation included FAR provision 52.212-1(e), which encourages “multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items.” Id.