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

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-419150.2 Mar 30, 2021 1 (2021-03-30)

handle is hein.gao/gaolid0001 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 Decision Matter of: Department of the Army--Reconsideration and Clarification of Remedy File: B-419150.2 Date: March 30, 2021 Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Jess R. Rankin, Major Susan Kim, and Captain Ethan Chae, Department of the Army, for the agency. Terrence Young, AES UXO, LLC, the protester. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Request for reconsideration of a prior decision sustaining a protest concerning an unduly restrictive solicitation provision is denied, where the requester does not show that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. 2. Request for reconsideration alleging errors in the underlying decision based on information that was available, but not submitted, during the initial protest is denied because parties withhold or fail to submit relevant evidence, information, or analysis for our initial consideration at their own peril. DECISION The Department of the Army requests reconsideration of our decision, AES UXO, LLC, B-419150, Dec. 7, 2020, 2020 CPD ¶ 395, sustaining in part a protest filed by AES UXO, LLC, of New Orleans, Louisiana, protesting the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W911 SA21 Q3008. The RFQ sought unexploded ordnance clearance services at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. We sustained the protest, finding that the RFQ was unduly restrictive of competition because it limited the evaluation of relevant experience and past performance to instances where the firm submitting the quotation had performed as a prime contractor or member of a joint venture, which precluded consideration of AES's relevant experience as a subcontractor. The Army argues that our decision was based on factual and legal error and an incomplete record. We deny the request for reconsideration, but clarify the recommendation of our prior decision.