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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-418223.4 1 (2021-02-09)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaecli0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 1O o U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE A Century of Non-Partisan Fact-Based Work 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: Academy Medical, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-418223.4 Date: February 9, 2021 Julie M. Nichols, Esq., Roeder, Cochran, Phillips, PLLC, for the protester. Jason A. M. Fragoso, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered. DECISION Academy Medical, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), of West Palm Beach, Florida, requests that our Office reconsider our decision, Academy Medical, LLC, B-418223.3, Oct. 7, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 324, in which we denied the protest of Academy's elimination from the competitive range under request for proposals No. 36C10G19R0050, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for the distribution and supply management of medical, surgical, dental, and laboratory supplies to VA medical centers and other governmental agencies. The protester alleges that our decision contained factual and legal errors that warrant modification of our prior decision. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND In our prior decision, we denied Academy's challenge to its elimination from the competitive range. Academy Medical, LLC, supra. Specifically, we denied the protester's challenges to the agency's price reasonableness methodology, independent government cost estimate (IGCE), and the agency's decision to exclude the protester from the competitive range because its price was unreasonable. Id. at 3-7. Additionally, we concluded that the protester had abandoned its challenges to the