Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Navy
Disposition: Request for reconsideration denied
Keywords: Reconsideration Request
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: To prevail on a request for reconsideration, the requesting party must either show that GAO’s decision contains an error of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants the decision’s reversal or modification.
Metasoft, LLC (Metasoft) requests that GAO reconsider its previous issued opinion denying a protest of the terms of a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of the Navy, for support services, including software maintenance and upgrades.
Metasoft, in its initial protest, raised a number of arguments that it claimed supported it position that the RFP should be set aside for small businesses. GAO denied the protest, finding that the record supported the agency’s determination that it could not expect to receive offers from at least two responsible small businesses capable of providing at least 50% of the services. GAO declined to address the protester’s argument that the agency overstated its technical requirements, finding the argument to be untimely since it was based on information furnished to Metasoft on April 9, yet the protest argument was not raised until June 7 in the protester’s comments on the agency report.
Metasoft has requested that GAO reconsider its decision maintaining that GAO erred when it determined that its argument regarding the overstated technical requirements was untimely. GAO states that to prevail on a request for reconsideration, the requesting party must either show that GAO’s decision contains an error of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants the decision’s reversal or modification. A request for reconsideration that reiterates arguments made previously and merely expresses disagreement with the prior decision does not meet the standard for granting reconsideration.
GAO finds that the rejection of the protester’s argument was proper. GAO’s Bid Protest
Regulations do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of
protest issues through later submissions – citing examples, or providing alternate or
more specific legal arguments missing from earlier general allegations of
impropriety. GAO will dismiss a protester’s piecemeal presentation of arguments that could have been raised earlier in the protest process. Because the protester did not present its argument earlier in the protest process, even though it could have done so, the protester’s argument was properly rejected as untimely. Similarly, Metasoft’s argument regarding the severability of the independent verification and validation test task order is also untimely. This argument appeared for the first time in the protester’s supplemental comments, filed on June 21, which was 52 days after the initial protest filing. Therefore, because the protester did not present this argument earlier in the protest process, even though it could have done so, the argument was untimely. The request for reconsideration is denied.