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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-416658.3 1 (2019-02-12)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadvoq0001 and id is 1 raw text is: G t O 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 Decision a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. ......................................................................................................................-- Matter of: AOC Connect, LLC -- Reconsideration File: B-416658.3 Date: February 12, 2019 David B. Dempsey, Esq., Dempsey Fontana, PLLC, for the protester. Meredith Skowronski, Esq., Library of Congress, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of dismissal of protest issue as untimely is denied where the allegation concerned a defect in the terms of the solicitation, notwithstanding the protester's efforts to characterize its allegation as a challenge to the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal. DECISION AOC Connect, LLC, a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, requests reconsideration of a portion of our decision in AOC Connect, LLC, B-416658, B-416558.2, Nov. 8, 2018, 2018 CPD 384, in which we sustained AOC's challenge to the Library of Congress' evaluation of the awardee's staffing under request for proposals (RFP) No. 030ADV- 18-R-01 86, but dismissed as untimely AOC's challenge to the Library's evaluation of the awardee's proposed technology solution as technically acceptable. In our decision we concluded that the protest essentially raised a challenge to the terms of the solicitation, which should have been raised prior to the due date for submission of proposals, because the agency put offerors on notice, through a solicitation amendment, that it was willing to accept the technology solution proposed by the awardee. In its request for reconsideration, AOC contends that its protest was timely because it was in fact a challenge to the agency evaluation of the awardee's technical solicitation and not a challenge to the terms of the solicitation. We deny the request for reconsideration. The RFP sought commercial item long-haul telecommunications network connectivity between a new computing facility and three existing Library data centers. As originally issued, the RFP required offerors to provide dark fiber, dense wavelength division