GAO Denies Request for Re-Reconsideration

The protester sought a second bite at the apple—actually, a third bite—after GAO previously dismissed its protest and denied an initial reconsideration request. The protester argued that GAO’s prior decisions contained factual and legal errors regarding the timeliness of its protest, its status as an interested party, and the agency’s handling of agency-level protests. GAO denied the first reconsideration request, finding no error in its prior analysis, and dismissed the second reconsideration request outright, ruling that its Bid Protest Regulations do not permit reconsideration of reconsideration decisions.

Mission Analytics, LLC–Reconsideration, GAO, B-423980.5; B-423980.6

• Background – The agency issued a solicitation for closed-circuit television system upgrades. The protester sent multiple emails challenging the solicitation terms hours before the closing deadline, then filed a protest with GAO at 5:31 p.m. ET on September 29—one minute and forty-nine seconds after the 5:30 p.m. filing cutoff, making it officially filed September 30. GAO dismissed the original protest as untimely and found the protester was not an interested party. After GAO denied an initial reconsideration request and dismissed a follow-on protest, the protester filed two more reconsideration requests challenging both rulings.
• Reviewing Agency-Level Protest Procedures – The protester argued that GAO erred by concluding the agency had effectively denied its agency-level protest simply by receiving and evaluating quotations without issuing a formal written decision. GAO rejected this argument, holding that its Bid Protest Regulations do not authorize appellate-style review of how an agency resolves agency-level protests.
• Bad Faith  – The protester claimed the agency acted in bad faith by misrepresenting the timeliness of its agency-level protests. GAO reiterated the well-established rule that government officials are presumed to act in good faith, and allegations of bias must be supported by convincing proof beyond mere inference and innuendo. The protester offered only an email chain showing the agency considered the matter resolved after GAO’s earlier decision and instructed staff to stop communicating with the protester. GAO found nothing in this exchange resembling bad faith conduct, so dismissal was proper.
• Repeated Arguments on Reconsideration – The protester’s second reconsideration request rehashed arguments about whether it submitted its quotation before learning of the award, whether it qualified as an interested party based on its agency-level protest, and whether technical difficulties with the Electronic Protest Docketing System excused its one-minute-late filing. GAO dismissed this request because its regulations only permit reconsideration of bid protest decisions—not reconsideration of reconsideration decisions. Having already considered and rejected these arguments twice, GAO saw no reason to entertain them a third time.

The protester is represented by Michael Winters of Mission Analytics, LLC. The government is represented by Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Major Edward S. Coleman, Isabelle Cutting, Esq., and Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., participated in the decision.