About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-415155.3 1 (2018-03-06)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaduna0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 



GO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
441 G St. N.W.                                                  Comptroller General
Washington, DC 20548                                             of the United States
                                                DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                            The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
                                            GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we
D ecision                                  Iare therefore releasing the decision in its entirety.



Matter of:   Department of Defense--Reconsideration

File:        B-415155.3

Date:        March 6, 2018

Hattie Russell DuBois, Esq., and William C. Moorhouse, Esq., Department of Defense,
for the agency.
Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq.,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester.
Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO,
participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST

Agency's request for reconsideration of a prior decision is denied where request does
not show the decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification.
DECISION

The Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Activity (DHRA), requests
reconsideration of our decision, Immersion Consulting, LLC, B-415155, B-415155.2,
Dec. 4, 2017, 2017 CPD   373, in which we sustained a protest by Immersion
Consulting, LLC, of Annapolis, Maryland, challenging the issuance of a Federal Supply
Schedule (FSS) order to NetImpact Strategies, Inc., of Chantilly, Virginia, under request
for proposals' (RFP) No. 1186423, issued by DHRA for program management support
services. DHRA argues that our decision contains errors of law and fact that merit
reconsideration.

We deny the request.

The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside competition under FSS No. 874-4,
anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price task order. Quotations were to be evaluated


1 As noted in our original decision, although the procurement at issue was a competition
among FSS contractors, we refer to the solicitation as an RFP to maintain consistency
with that designation in the contemporaneous record.