Mission Analytics, LLC--Reconsideration

View Decision Decision Matter of: Mission Analytics, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-423980.5; B-423980.6 Date: May 21, 2026 Michael Winters, for the protester. Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Major Edward S. Coleman, Isabelle Cutting, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Request for reconsideration is denied where our decision did not contain any factual or legal error. 2. Second request for reconsideration is dismissed because our Office's Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate such review. DECISION Mission Analytics, LLC, of Falls Church, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decisions, Mission Analytics, LLC-Recon. , B-423980.2, B-420983.4, Mar. 31, 2026, and Mission Analytics, LLC , B‑423980.3, Apr. 1, 2026. The decisions concern allegations raised in connection with request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA500426Q1001, issued by the Department of the Air Force for closed-circuit television (CCTV) system upgrades. Mission Analytics argues that both decisions contain factual and legal errors. We deny and dismiss the requests. BACKGROUND On September 11, 2025, the Air Force issued the RFQ to procure upgrades for the CCTV system at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Mission Analytics, LLC , supra at 1; see also Req. for Dismissal (B‑423980), attach. A, RFQ at 4. The acquisition was conducted in accordance with the commercial products and services acquisition procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6. RFQ at 4. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a purchase order to the vendor whose quotation represents the best-value considering price and technical factors. Id. at 6. The closing time for receipt of proposals was 12:00 p.m., Alaskan Time ( i.e. , 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)), on September 17. Id. at 1. At 9:11 a.m. ET on September 17, Mission Analytics contacted agency contracting officials and asked the agency to revise the solicitation to include an actual zoom range for the cameras of “30X,” as opposed to the solicited requirement of “36X.” Protest (B‑423980), E-mails Between Mission Analytics and Agency at 3. The protester explained that the “36X” zoom range requirement was overly restrictive because the solicited camera can only achieve the “36X” zoom range with image stabilization deactivated; otherwise, the zoom range is reduced to “30X.” Id. At 1:35 p.m. ET, an agency official responded that they had reviewed the email and were reviewing the request. Id. at 1-2. At 3:40 p.m. ET, Mission Analytics informed the agency that “[d]ue to the impending closure of the solicitation, this will be elevated to an Agency Protest.” Protest (B‑423980), E-mails Between Mission Analytics and Agency at 1. The firm argued that the “36X” zoom range requirement was unduly restrictive of competition. Id. At 3:48 p.m. ET, Mission Analytics sent the agency an email challenging the RFQ's inclusion of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.225-7001, Buy American and Balance of Payments Program, and arguing that several other clauses and provisions should be removed. Req. for Dismissal (B‑423980), attach. D, Mission Analytics Quote Submission and Emails Between Agency and Protester at 1-4. At 3:59 p.m. ET, Mission Analytics sent another email to the agency complaining that the Air Force unreasonably failed to solicit the requirement as a small business set-aside. Req. for Dismissal, attach. G, Emails Between Agency and Protester at 2-3. The agency considered both complaints to be part of an agency‑level protest. Req. for Dismissal (B‑423980) at 2. Rather than pause or extend the solicitation period, the Air Force instead proceeded to receive and evaluate quotations. Req. for Dismissal (B-423980) at 2. On September 23, the agency identified the quotation submitted by Wingmann, LLC, of McCloud, Oklahoma, as representing the best‑value and issued a purchase order to that firm in the amount of $1,030,578. Id. The agency explained that it posted notice of the purchase order to the System for Award Management (SAM) that same day. Id. On September 25, Mission Analytics withdrew its agency-level protest challenging the RFQ's inclusion of DFARS clause 252.225-700122, acknowledging that this clause was properly included. Req. for Dismissal (B-423980), attach. D, Mission Analytics Quote Submission and Emails Between Agency and Protester at 1. At 5:07 p.m. ET on September 29, Mission Analytics submitted a quotation. Req. for Recon. (B-423980.6), at 4. The protester explains that, after it submitted its quotation, the Air Force posted notice of the awarded purchase order to SAM. Id. The firm provides a screenshot of the SAM posting showing that the agency published the notice at 5:59 p.m. ET. Id. at 1. At 5:31 p.m.