Integral Federal, Inc.-- Reconsideration

B-423672.2 Dec 08, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Integral Federal, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Integral Federal, Inc., B-423672, Aug. 1, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 185, in which we dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction because the value of the challenged task order fell below the relevant jurisdictional dollar threshold of $35 million. The requester contends that our Office erred in determining the value of the task order without first addressing the merits of the requester's allegation that the agency improperly failed to amend the solicitation in response to changed requirements. We dismiss the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Integral Federal, Inc.-- Reconsideration File: B-423672.2 Date: December 8, 2025 Anuj Vohra, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and Roxanne N. Cassidy, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Jonathan A. Hardage, Esq., Department of the Army, 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 is dismissed where it only repeats arguments previously presented in the underlying protest. DECISION Integral Federal, Inc., a small business of McLean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Integral Federal, Inc., B‑423672, Aug. 1, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 185, in which we dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction because the value of the challenged task order fell below the relevant jurisdictional dollar threshold of $35 million. The requester contends that our Office erred in determining the value of the task order without first addressing the merits of the requester's allegation that the agency improperly failed to amend the solicitation in response to changed requirements. We dismiss the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The requester filed a protest with our Office challenging the issuance of a task order to The SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (Survice), a small business of Belcamp, Maryland, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W911QX‑25‑R‑A001, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, for research and development services. Integral Fed., supra at 1. The requester challenged various aspects of the agency's evaluation of its proposal and asserted that the agency violated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.206(a) by failing to amend the RFP when the agency's requirements allegedly changed. Id. Relevant to the issues here, the agency received proposals from two offerors--the requester and Survice--by the RFP's May 15, 2025, due date for receipt of proposals. Id. at 2. On June 4, the agency notified the requester that its offer was unsuccessful and the agency had issued the task order to Survice. Id. While the notice included a chart stating that Survice's proposed cost was $39,166,805,[1] it further stated that the task order had been issued for $28,551,706 because “it was determined certain labor categories were determined to no longer be required, therefore they were not included as part of the award.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The agency requested dismissal of the protest, arguing that our Office lacked jurisdiction because the value of the issued task order fell below the $35 million jurisdictional threshold for protests of task orders issued under Department of Defense indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contracts established by 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f). Id. at 3. We agreed that the value of the issued task order--$28,551,706--controlled for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and consequently concluded that our Office did not have jurisdiction to consider the protest. Id. at 3‑4. We therefore dismissed it. Id. at 4. 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 material 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.--Recon., B‑414410.3, Sept. 20, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 292 at 3. The requester asserts that our decision dismissing its protest contains multiple errors of law with respect to the conclusion that the value of the issued task order fell below the relevant $35 million threshold and that our Office therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider the protest.