Vox Optima, LLC--Reconsideration

B-423661.3 Sep 03, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Vox Optima, LLC, a woman-owned small business of Tijeras, New Mexico, requests reconsideration of our decision in Vox Optima, LLC, B-423661, July 15, 2025 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed the protest because the requester was not an interested party. The requester contends that our Office erred in dismissing the protest because the agency withheld information pertinent to the protest, failed to implement a stay of performance, and provided a post hoc rationale for why the requester's proposal was unacceptable. The requester further alleges improper recruitment of its personnel. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: Vox Optima, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-423661.3 Date: September 3, 2025 Jonathan Bozek for the requester. Howard B. Rein, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision dismissing protest because the protester was not an interested party due to the existence of an intervening offer is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Vox Optima, LLC, a woman‑owned small business of Tijeras, New Mexico, requests reconsideration of our decision in Vox Optima, LLC, B‑423661, July 15, 2025 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed the protest because the requester was not an interested party. The requester contends that our Office erred in dismissing the protest because the agency withheld information pertinent to the protest, failed to implement a stay of performance, and provided a post hoc rationale for why the requester's proposal was unacceptable. The requester further alleges improper recruitment of its personnel. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The requester filed a protest with our Office challenging the issuance of order No. N6449825F5007 to Red Carrot, Inc., a woman‑owned small business of Miami, Florida, under Red Carrot's General Services Administration multiple award schedule (MAS) contract pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. N6449825R4001, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for commercial corporate communications services for the Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Vox Optima, supra at 1. The requester, which is the incumbent contractor, alleged that the agency misevaluated Red Carrot's proposal as acceptable and selected it for award at a price of $3.1 million, and that efforts made by Red Carrot to recruit incumbent employees were improper.[1] Id. The agency requested dismissal of the protest, arguing that the requester was not an interested party because it would not be next in line for award even if its protest was sustained. Id. at 2. In that regard, the agency disclosed that a third firm had submitted an acceptable offer at a lower price than the requester's evaluated price of $4.7 million, and stated that the RFP provided for the order to be issued to the firm that submitted the lowest‑priced technically acceptable offer. Id. Because the requester had not raised any challenge to the evaluation of the intervening offer, we concluded that the requester lacked the direct economic interest required to maintain a protest, as even if the requester prevailed on its protest allegations, the third firm would be next in line to receive the order. Id. We therefore dismissed the protest. Id. This request for reconsideration followed. DISCUSSION To obtain reconsideration, our Bid Protest Regulations require that the requesting party 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). The repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(c); Epsilon Sys. Sols., Inc., B‑414410.3, Sept. 20, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 292 at 3. As discussed above, we dismissed the requester's protest because the requester was not an interested party due to the existence of an intervening offeror that would have been next in line to receive the order even if the requester's protest were sustained. Pertinent to that conclusion, the requester contends here that the agency failed to disclose the existence of that intervening offer, which the requester argues “violated debriefing requirements under [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section] 15.506(d)(2)” and “directly impacted GAO's interested party analysis[.]” Req. for Recon. at 2.