Protest Decision Released: Treasury Microsoft brand software products and maintenance and cloud computing services requirement reconsideration denial

DIGEST

Request for reconsideration is denied where the requester has not shown that our prior decision contained an error of fact or law warranting reversal or modification.

DISCUSSION

The crux of the request for reconsideration is that our prior decision improperly concluded that Minburn’s protest failed to provide a valid factual basis to challenge the agency’s fair market price determination for the sole-source requirement.  Req. for Recon. at 5-6.  Specifically, Minburn faults our Office’s reliance on the agency’s unsupported arguments to dismiss its protest.  Minburn notes that the agency’s dismissal request asserted that Minburn’s price did not provide a valid benchmark to assess the fair market price for the sole-source requirements because the price lacked items that were included in the price for the sole-source contract, i.e., “true-up costs” and additional supplies.  Id. at 5.  Minburn now contends that the agency’s assertions about the items missing from its quoted price, but included in the sole-source requirement, were unsupported.  Because its own arguments and evidence remained uncontradicted, Minburn argues that our Office improperly disregarded Minburn’s allegation that Echelon’s price exceeded the fair market price.  Id. (citing 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) and (f) which “contemplate that protesters will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood that the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action.”).  Accordingly, Minburn argues our decision was based on an error of law.  Id. at 2, 5-6.    Under our regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must 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).  We will reverse a decision upon reconsideration only where the requesting party demonstrates that the decision contains a material error of law or facts.  AeroSage, LLC–Recon., B-417529.3, Oct. 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 351 at 2 n.2; Department of Justice; Hope Village, Inc.–Recon., B-414342.5, B-414342.6, May 21, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 195 at 4.  The repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard.  Veda, Inc.–Recon., B-278516.3, B-278516.4, July 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 12 at 4.  Moreover, a party’s assertion of new arguments or presentation of information that could have been, but was not, presented during the initial protest fails to satisfy the standard for granting reconsideration…

DECISION

Minburn Technology Group, LLC, of Great Falls, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Minburn Tech. Grp., LLC, B-422027, Oct. 10, 2023 (unpublished decision), dismissing its protest challenging the award of a sole-source contract to Echelon Services, LLC, a small business of Manassas, Virginia.  The sole-source contract was awarded by the Department of the Treasury under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) small disadvantaged business contracting program, for an enterprise agreement for Microsoft brand software products and maintenance and cloud computing services.  Minburn argues that our Office erred in dismissing its protest based on the unsupported representations of the agency.  We deny the request for reconsideration.

See the report here.

🔊 Listen to Story