Highlights
F.S.O.C., LLC, of El Segundo, California, requests reconsideration of our decision, F.S.O.C., LLC., B-424074, Dec. 15, 2025 (unpublished decision), which dismissed as untimely the protester's challenge to the award of a contract to another firm under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15F06725R0000117, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). F.S.O.C. contends that our decision contains legal and factual errors.
Decision
Matter of: F.S.O.C., LLC--Reconsideration
File: B-424074.2
Date: February 9, 2026
Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, LLC, for the protester.
Camille Small-Simon, Esq., and Carlos Pedraza, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Digest
Request for reconsideration is denied where the request does not demonstrate a factual or legal error in our decision dismissing the firm's earlier protest.
Decision
F.S.O.C., LLC, of El Segundo, California, requests reconsideration of our decision, F.S.O.C., LLC., B‑424074, Dec. 15, 2025 (unpublished decision), which dismissed as untimely the protester's challenge to the award of a contract to another firm under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15F06725R0000117, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). F.S.O.C. contends that our decision contains legal and factual errors.
We deny the request for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2025, the FBI issued the solicitation to procure overt ballistic resistant soft armor. Protest, exh. 1, RFP at 7. On September 19, 2025, the FBI notified F.S.O.C. that its proposal was unsuccessful. Protest at 2. On September 23, F.S.O.C. filed an agency-level protest, arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal and improperly made the selection decision, as well as challenging the awardee's size status. Req. for Dismissal at 2. The size status challenges were sent to the Small Business Administration. Id. at 3. On October 28, the agency denied the agency‑level protest with respect to the allegations made concerning the evaluation and selection decision. Req. for Dismissal, attach. 8, Agency-Level Protest Decision at 2-3.
Citations are to the Adobe PDF page numbers.
On October 1, our Office closed due to a lapse in appropriations. We distributed the following email to all accounts registered in the Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS):
1. GAO is closed due to a lapse in appropriations. This includes the GAO bid protest office.
2. Beginning at noon on October 1, 2025, the Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS) will not be operational, and will be inaccessible during the time our Office is closed. Accordingly, no protest‑related documents may be filed or accessed through EPDS during the period of time that GAO is closed.
3. GAO will toll protest decision deadlines for a period of time equal to the length of time that GAO is closed.
4. Deadlines for the filing of new protests that fall on a day that GAO is closed are extended to the first day that GAO resumes operations. This extension operates in the same manner as when a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday.
5. Because EPDS will not be operational and the parties will be unable to access protest documents during a shutdown, any other filing deadline for an agency or private party (to include supplemental protest deadlines) that falls on a day that GAO is closed is extended by one day for every day that GAO was closed. For example, if GAO is closed starting on October 1, 2025, and reopens on October 6, an agency report due on October 3, would now be due October 8.
Req. for Dismissal, attach. 10. GAO Notice Concerning Closure at 1. On November 12, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119‑37, div. C, title I, 139 Stat. 495, 581 (2025), which appropriated funding for GAO through the remainder of fiscal year 2026. As a result, our Office resumed operations on November 12 and reopened for a full business day on November 13. Oready LLC--Recon., B‑424096.2, Jan. 5, 2026, at 4 (stating “GAO resumed operations on November 13”). As part of the reopening process, we restored functionality to EPDS and distributed another email to EPDS users stating “[e]ffective Thursday, November 13, GAO has resumed normal operations” at 6:19 a.m., Eastern Time (ET). Resp. to Req. for Dismissal, exh. B, EPDS Email to All Users at 1.
At 6:29 p.m. ET, on November 13, F.S.O.C. filed the underlying protest with our Office. It alleged that the agency provided an inadequate debriefing, unreasonably evaluated the awardee's past performance and price proposals and improperly conducted the best-value tradeoff decision. Protest at 3-9. F.S.O.C. also alleged that the awardee misrepresented its status as a small business concern. Id. at 4-5.
On November 24, the FBI requested dismissal of the protest as untimely. The agency argued that the protest was filed after the due date, November 13, set by our Bid Protest Regulations. Req. for Dismissal at 4-6. The protester responded that our Office was closed for some part of November 13, and therefore, its protest was not due until November 14. Resp. to Req. for Dismissal at 2.
On December 15, we dismissed the protest as untimely. F.S.O.C., LLC, supra at 1. We explained that F.S.O.C. knew of the bases of its protest as of October 28, and therefore, the due date for submission of its protest was November 7; however, because our Office was closed, the due date extended to the next day GAO was open, November 13. Id. at 2-3. Because F.S.O.C.'s protest was filed after-business hours at 6:29 p.m. ET, on November 13, it was filed on November 14 and was therefore dismissed as untimely. Id. at 2-3. On December 22, F.S.O.C. submitted this request that we reconsider our decision dismissing its protest.
DISCUSSION
F.S.O.C. alleges that our decision to dismiss its protest contained factual and legal error. F.S.O.C. argues that GAO was closed “until GAO restarted EPDS and until GAO advised registered accounts that it had been restarted.” Req. for Recon. at 1. As support, F.S.O.C. points out that our October 1, email communicated that EPDS would not be operational or accessible while GAO was closed. Id. Thus, since EPDS may have been unavailable during the pre-business morning hours on November 13, F.S.O.C. argues that our Office was not open for the entirety of that day and that its deadline for filing extended to the following day pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(d). Id.
In relevant part, 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(d) provides “when [GAO], or another Federal agency where a submission is due, is closed for all or part of the last day, the period extends to the next day on which the agency is open.”
To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must either show that our decision contains an error of fact or law, or present information not previously considered, that warrants the decision's reversal or modification. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a); Waterfront Techs., Inc.--Recon., B-403638.4, June 29, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 126 at 3.
Here, we find that our decision does not contain any error because our Office was open for the entirety of November 13. As stated, GAO was closed due to a lapse in appropriations from October 1 until November 12. Our Office reopened and resumed operations immediately upon the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, which indisputably occurred on November 12. Pub. L. No. 119-37; see also Oready LLC--Recon, supra.
Further, while F.S.O.C. reads our October 1, email as conditioning GAO's reopening on the availability of EPDS, we disagree. When read as a whole, our notice explains that “GAO is closed due to a lapse in appropriations,” and that EPDS would be inaccessible during that period. Req. for Dismissal, attach. at 10; GAO Notice Concerning Closure at 1. The notice does not state that GAO would be considered open only when EPDS became available but rather clarifies that EPDS would be unavailable during the lapse in appropriations.
Finally, F.S.O.C. does not identify any authority that conditions GAO's operating status on the availability of EPDS. To the contrary, our EPDS instructions explain that protesters should file protests through our protest email inbox if EPDS is unavailable. EPDS Instructions, Section VII, 22(b). Accordingly, we deny the request for reconsideration.
Moreover, while EPDS may have been unavailable during pre-business morning hours, the system was available during normal operating hours (i.e., 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.). See Resp. to Req. for Dismissal, exh. B, EPDS Email to All Users at 1.; see also EPDS Instructions, Section VII, 22(a) (GAO endeavors to maintain the availability of EPDS from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET).
The request is denied.
Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel
This is a verbatim capture of GAO's own published decision. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order GAO wrote them. One thing is moved: GAO collects its numbered notes at the foot of the document, and each is shown here under the paragraph that first cites it, with its own number carrying you back. A note the decision never cites stays where GAO printed it.