Vox Optima, LLC--Reconsideration (B-423661.3)

You should not care.

Category: Debriefings under Multiple Award Schedules

Date: 3 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423661.3

Vox Optima, the incumbent contractor, requested reconsideration of GAO's decision dismissing its protest for lack of interested party status. GAO had dismissed the original protest because an intervening offeror with a lower-priced acceptable proposal would be next in line for award even had Vox Optima's challenges to the awardee been sustained. The requester argued GAO erred by not considering the agency's alleged failure to properly disclose information during the debriefing process.

Debriefing requirements: Vox Optima contended the Navy violated FAR section 15.506(d) by failing to disclose the existence of the intervening offeror in the agency's postaward communications. The requester argued that FAR subsection 8.405-2(d), which governs this procurement conducted under FAR subpart 8.4 procedures for GSA Schedule orders, "explicitly incorporates" FAR section 15.506(d)'s debriefing content requirements.

GAO rejected this argument, finding that FAR subsection 8.405-2(d) does not incorporate FAR section 15.506(d). Procurements under FAR subpart 8.4 do not require formal debriefings; rather, agencies need only provide a "brief explanation" of the source selection decision. The Navy provided such a brief explanation on June 17, 2025, which satisfied its regulatory obligations.

Interested party analysis: The requester argued that the agency's failure to disclose the intervening offer in the brief explanation impacted GAO's interested party analysis. However, GAO noted that the agency disclosed the intervening offer in its request for dismissal of the protest. Even after learning of the intervening offer through the dismissal request, Vox Optima did not challenge the acceptability of that offer and therefore failed to demonstrate it would be next in line for award if its protest were sustained.

Under GAO's bid protest regulations, reconsideration requires the requesting party to show errors of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification. Mere disagreement with GAO's decision does not meet this standard.

Other arguments: Vox Optima raised additional arguments about the agency's alleged failure to implement a stay of performance, the agency's provision of post hoc rationale regarding technical unacceptability, and the awardee's recruitment of incumbent personnel. GAO declined to address these issues, finding they had no bearing on the threshold question of whether Vox Optima qualified as an interested party.

The request for reconsideration was denied. GAO found no errors in its original dismissal and noted the requester had not challenged the intervening offer's acceptability even after learning of its existence.

Digest

Request for reconsideration of prior decision dismissing protest because the protester was not an interested party due to the existence of an intervening offer is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision.