Mission Analytics, LLC (36C26224Q1803)

B-423165 Jan 28, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Analytics, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the scope of the agency's proposed corrective action, announced in response to Mission Analytics' agency-level protest challenging the award of a contract to Aviate Enterprises, Inc., an SDVOSB of McClellan, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26224Q1803, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for video display monitors. The protester contends the agency's proposed corrective action is unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mission Analytics, LLC File: B-423165 Date: January 28, 2025 Michael F. Winters, for the protester Daniel J. McFeely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the scope of the agency’s proposed corrective action, taken in response to an agency-level protest, is denied where the agency reasonably decided to take corrective action to address perceived flaws in the solicitation and to ensure a fair and impartial competition. DECISION Mission Analytics, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the scope of the agency’s proposed corrective action, announced in response to Mission Analytics’ agency-level protest challenging the award of a contract to Aviate Enterprises, Inc., an SDVOSB of McClellan, California, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26224Q1803, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for video display monitors. The protester contends the agency’s proposed corrective action is unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on September 5, as an SDVOSB set‑aside, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services) and 13 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) for commercial grade monitors. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 2, RFQ at 6.[1] Specifically, the solicitation contemplated the award of a contract, on a fixed-price basis, for 86-inch monitors and mounting brackets, that were brand name or equal to NEC Display Solutions commercial monitor (model No. M861), which would be installed at the Greater Los Angeles, California VA medical center. Id. at 3. In addition to the brand name or equal designation, the RFQ also identified eight salient characteristics of the requested product. Id. The agency received quotations by the September 12 due date. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The agency made award to Aviate Enterprises, Inc., on September 19, and provided public notice of the agency’s award decision on September 20. Id. On September 24, the protester filed an agency-level protest with the VA. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 3, First Agency-level Protest at 3-5. Mission Analytics argued the agency provided insufficient notification regarding the application of a waiver to the small business nonmanufacturer rule (NMR).[2] Id. On September 26, the agency provided its response to the protest, explaining, in relevant part: As a result of the protest, the Contracting Officer has reviewed the procurement and has determined that there were errors in the procurement. The Contracting Officer has also determined that the solicitation does not accurately reflect VA’s requirements for this procurement. The Contracting Officer has determined that corrective action is necessary to correct these deficiencies. To this end, VA will terminate the contract award to Aviate Enterprises, Inc. for the subject procurement. VA will also review its requirements for this procurement and will proceed in a manner appropriate to the results of that review. Because this corrective action results in the termination of the contract award decision that forms the basis for your protest, the protest is rendered moot, and this protest is considered closed. Id. at 2. Mission Analytics filed a second agency-level protest with the VA on October 7. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 4, Second Agency-level Protest at 4-6. In this protest, Mission Analytics argued the VA’s “state[d] intent to cancel the solicitation rather than award to lowest eligible offer” was unreasonable and asked the agency to “[r]eopen [the] solicitation and award to Mission Analytics.” Id. at 6. On October 29, the VA’s senior procurement executive responded to Mission Analytics’ protest, providing that the agency’s “decision to terminate the contract award and proceed with a review of the requirements for this procurement was reasonable.” Id. at 2.