Hawthorne Commercial Construction--Reconsideration

B-423753.3 Mar 02, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Hawthorne Commercial Construction (Hawthorne), of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, requests that we reconsider our decision dismissing its protest alleging that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) unreasonably evaluated its proposal under solicitation No. 36C77624R0098, issued for facilities construction services. Hawthorne requests reconsideration of our decision dismissing its protest for failing to file comments responding to the agency report, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: Hawthorne Commercial Construction--Reconsideration File: B-423753.3 Date: March 2, 2026 Peter Ianuzzi, for the requester. Natica C. Neely, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jungi Hong, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a protest for failure to submit comments on the agency report is denied where the requester does not show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law or information not previously considered. DECISION Hawthorne Commercial Construction (Hawthorne), of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, requests that we reconsider our decision dismissing its protest alleging that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) unreasonably evaluated its proposal under solicitation No. 36C77624R0098, issued for facilities construction services. Hawthorne requests reconsideration of our decision dismissing its protest for failing to file comments responding to the agency report, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations. We deny the request. BACKGROUND Hawthorne filed a protest (B-423753.2) with our Office challenging the agency's evaluation of its proposal. Specifically, Hawthorne argued that the VA's assignment of a rating of “limited confidence” for past performance was unreasonable. Protest at 1-2. Shortly after the protest was filed, our Office issued written notices to the parties, acknowledging receipt of the new protest. B‑423753.2, Acknowledgement of Protest & Confirmation of Report Requirement (Ack. & Conf.). The notice advised Hawthorne and the VA, among other things, that the protester's comments on the agency report “must be filed via our Electronic Protest Docket System (EPDS) [hereinafter also Dkt.] within 10 calendar days of the filing of the agency's report--otherwise, we will dismiss [the] protest.” Id. at 1. The VA filed a final redacted version of the agency report in EPDS, which was available to the protester on January 28.[1] Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, under our regulations, Hawthorne's comments were due within 10 calendar days, which, after accounting for the fact that the tenth day fell on a weekend, was February 9. 4 C.F.R. § 21.3(i)(1). Hawthorne did not submit comments by this date, therefore we dismissed the protest. Hawthorne Commercial Constr., B‑423753.2, Feb. 12, 2026 (unpublished decision). This request for reconsideration followed on February 13. DISCUSSION In its request, Hawthorne argues that its protest should not have been dismissed because, notwithstanding the fact that it did not file comments, it did not affirmatively indicate an intent to abandon its protest. Req. for Recon. at 1. The requester contends that it was not required to repeat previous arguments, and that its reliance on its protest as initially filed does not constitute abandonment. Id. We find no basis to grant Hawthorne's request for reconsideration. Under our regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must set out factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision is warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a), (c). A requester's disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard. Id.; Veda, Inc.--Recon., B-278516.3, B-278516.4, July 8, 1998, at 4. Here, the requester does not set forth any factual or legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision dismissing its protest is warranted. The record is clear--and the requester does not dispute--that Hawthorne did not submit comments to the agency report by the established deadline (or anytime thereafter). Instead, Hawthorne argues dismissal of its protest was in error because, according to the requester, section 21.3(i) of our regulations “provides for dismissal where a protester's failure to file comments indicates abandonment.” Req. for Recon. at 1-2. The request also cites two decisions from our Office that purports to support this proposition, Keymiaee Aero-Tech, Inc., B‑274803.2, Dec. 20, 1996, and California Environmental Engineering, B-274807, B‑274807.2, Jan. 3, 1997.