AeroSage, LLC

B-414314.3 Jul 24, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AeroSage LLC requests that our Office reconsider our decision, AeroSage LLC, B-414314, B-414314.2, May 5, 2017, 2017 CPD para. 137, in which we denied the protest of the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE600-17-P-2175, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diesel fuel for the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AeroSage LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-414314.3 Date:  July 24, 2017 David M. Snyder, for the protester. Journey Beard, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, 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, and where the requestor's disagreement with the scope of the procuring agency's document release during the course of the protest does not meet our standard for reversal or modification of the prior decision. DECISION AeroSage LLC requests that our Office reconsider our decision, AeroSage LLC, B-414314, B-414314.2, May 5, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 137, in which we denied the protest of the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE600-17-P-2175, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for diesel fuel for the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND In our prior decision, we denied AeroSage's protest of DLA's decision not to set aside the procurement for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs).  AeroSage LLC, supra.  We found, based on our review of the record and the circumstances of the procurement, that the contracting officer reasonably focused her market research on prospective fuel vendors to Wisconsin given the urgency of the requirement, and that she reasonably concluded that DLA did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving quotations from two or more SDVOSBs capable of performing the requirement at a fair and reasonable price.[1]  Id. at 4-6.  We also found reasonable the contracting officer's conclusion that DLA could not expect adequate price competition, because the only prospective SDVOSB vendors identified in her market research (AeroSage and SageCare) were owned by the same individual and their common ownership did not meet the set-aside requirements of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (the VA Act), 38 U.S.C. § 8127.  Id. at 6-7. AeroSage requests that we reconsider the decision because, according to AeroSage, it was based on legal and factual errors.  Req. for Recon. at 1.  AeroSage contends, among other things, that we failed to consider the VA Act and the VA's small business regulations; that DLA made false statements and acted in bad faith; and that AeroSage was denied documents necessary to support its protest allegations.  Id. at 1-2. DISCUSSION Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration of a decision, the requesting party must set out the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision is deemed warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered.  4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a). AeroSage has not met this standard.  As an initial matter, we recognize that our prior decision did not specifically discuss all of the protester's arguments.  However, as stated in the decision, we considered all of AeroSage's arguments and concluded, based on our review of the record, that none furnished a basis on which to sustain the protest.  AeroSage, LLC, supra, at 7 n.4.  As is our practice, the decision addressed AeroSage's principal protest grounds, which is consistent with the statutory mandate that our bid protest forum provide for "the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests."  See Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. § 3554(a)(1); Ahtna Facility Servs., Inc.--Recon., B-404913.3, Oct. 6, 2011, 2012 CPD ¶ 270 at 3.  Thus, to the extent that AeroSage believes that our decision is flawed because it did not specifically address each and every one of the protester's arguments, this would not warrant reversing or modifying the decision. Contrary to AeroSage's assertion, our decision specifically addressed the requirements of the VA Act and the relevant regulations, which were fundamental to resolving the protest.  AeroSage LLC, supra, at 4 ("AeroSage's allegations concern requirements under the [the VA Act].  38 U.S.C.