Mission Analytics, LLC--Reconsideration

B-423165.6 May 14, 2026 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Analytics, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423165.5, Feb. 20, 2026. In that decision, we denied its protest of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) decision to purchase video display monitors using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and the subsequent issuance of a delivery order to Focus Camera, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1748442. The requester argues that our Office erred in denying its protest. We dismiss the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: Mission Analytics, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-423165.6 Date: May 14, 2026 Michael Winters, for the requester. Jared M. Levin, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is dismissed where the requesting party merely repeats arguments previously raised and rejected by our Office and has not otherwise shown that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Mission Analytics, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) located in Falls Church, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423165.5, Feb. 20, 2026. In that decision, we denied its protest of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) decision to purchase video display monitors using the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and the subsequent issuance of a delivery order to Focus Camera, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1748442. The requester argues that our Office erred in denying its protest. We dismiss the request. BACKGROUND On September 24, 2024, Mission Analytics filed an agency-level protest challenging the issuance of an order to Aviate Enterprises, Inc., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26224Q1803 (RFQ 1803), which was issued as an SDVOSB set-aside for the video monitors on a brand name or equal basis. In response to that protest, the contracting officer took corrective action to address defects in the RFQ by terminating the order issued to Aviate, reviewing the agency's requirements, conducting additional market research, and revising the solicitation. On September 26, the contracting officer dismissed Mission Analytics' initial agency-level protest based on the proposed corrective action. See Protest (B-423165). On October 7, Mission Analytics filed a second agency-level protest challenging the scope of the contracting officer's proposed corrective action. Among other things, Mission Analytics alleged that the VA impermissibly intended to cancel the solicitation (RFQ 1803) rather than make award to Mission Analytics as the next lowest-priced eligible vendor. On October 29, the VA's senior procurement executive denied Mission Analytics' protest finding that the contracting officer's proposed corrective action was reasonable to correct the identified defects in the solicitation. Thereafter, on November 8, Mission Analytics filed its first protest with our Office, challenging the agency's denial of the second agency-level protest, which was docketed as B-423165. See Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423165, Jan. 28, 2025. In its protest, Mission Analytics again challenged the agency's proposed corrective action that included additional market research and revisions to the solicitation. Additionally, Mission Analytics alleged that the agency's additional corrective action unreasonably included cancellation of the underlying solicitation (RFQ 1803) rather than making award to the protester as the only other vendor. We denied Mission Analytics' protest, finding that the VA's intended corrective action, i.e., terminating the initial award, reviewing its requirements, conducting additional market research, and revising the RFQ was reasonable to address the identified flaws in the solicitation. In that decision, we stated that “the parties are in apparent agreement that the solicitation is defective, though perhaps differing as to how.” Mission Analytics, LLC, supra at 4. We also considered and rejected as effectively premature Mission Analytics' claim that the VA intended to cancel the underlying solicitation noting that “nothing in the record provides that the agency has committed to cancelling the RFQ.” Id. at 4 n.4. On February 7, Mission Analytics requested that we reconsider our decision denying protest B-423165. We denied that request because Mission Analytics did not demonstrate any error of fact or law that would have altered the outcome of our original decision. Mission Analytics, LLC--Recon., B-423165.2, Apr. 15, 2025.