Mission Analytics, LLC (FA442724Q0145)

B-423198.2 May 30, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Analytics, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Falls Church, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423198, Feb. 26, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 54, denying its protest of the award of a contract to ThunderCat Technology, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA442724Q0145, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide technology upgrades to an auditorium. The requester argued that the agency's evaluation of Mission Analytics's technical approach was unreasonable and the agency's price analysis was flawed. We denied the protest because the record supported the agency's evaluation of Mission Analytics's quotation as technically unacceptable and the agency's price evaluation of the awardee's quotation as fair and reasonable. The requester argues that our decision contained errors of fact and 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-423198.2 Date: May 30, 2025 Michael Winters for the requester. Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Josephine Farinelli, Esq., and Siobhan Donahue, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, 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 service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Falls Church, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Mission Analytics, LLC, B-423198, Feb. 26, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 54, denying its protest of the award of a contract to ThunderCat Technology, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA442724Q0145, issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide technology upgrades to an auditorium. The requester argued that the agency’s evaluation of Mission Analytics’s technical approach was unreasonable and the agency’s price analysis was flawed. We denied the protest because the record supported the agency’s evaluation of Mission Analytics’s quotation as technically unacceptable and the agency’s price evaluation of the awardee’s quotation as fair and reasonable. The requester argues that our decision contained errors of fact and law that warrant modification of our prior decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on August 6, 2024, as a small business set-aside, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 13. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFQ at 1.[1] The RFQ contemplated the award of a fixed-price service contract to upgrade the audio-visual technology of the auditorium used by the 9th Air Refueling Squadron on Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California. AR, Tab 14, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 2. The solicitation advised that vendors “shall provide a detailed description and specification of the items included in the quote,” and that each quotation “shall meet the needs detailed in the [PWS].” RFQ at 3. Award would be made to the “responsible offeror whose offer . . . will be most advantageous” to the government, considering the following evaluation factors: technical capability and price. Id. at 3. For technical capability, quotations would be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Id. Price would be evaluated for reasonableness. Id. As relevant here, the solicitation required the installation of a modernized audio-visual system, including a 55-inch “confidence monitor” intended to hang from the ceiling of the auditorium. AR, Tab 14, PWS at 4, 6. The PWS instructed vendors that the monitor should be “mounted in the ceiling of the facility and facing the presenter, to show the presenter what is on-screen without requiring the presenter to turn-around.” Id. at 4. Mission Analytics submitted two quotations in response to the solicitation, and the agency evaluated both quotations as technically unacceptable, in part because Mission Analytics failed to include a detailed plan to install the confidence monitor in either quotation. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4-5; AR, Tab 19, Abstract of Quotation Evaluations at 1. As relevant here, the agency determined that both quotations omitted pertinent information such as where the confidence monitor would be placed in the auditorium. AR, Tab 24, Technical Evaluation of Protester’s Quotation at 2; COS at 8; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 7.