AeroSage, LLC

B-416279 Jul 16, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AeroSage LLC, of Tampa, Florida, and SageCare, Inc., also of Tampa, Florida, each a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), jointly protest the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE605-18-Q-0201, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy, for the delivery of fuel products to four locations in New York. The protesters raise numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AeroSage LLC; SageCare, Inc. File:  B-416279 Date:  July 16, 2018 David M. Snyder for the protesters. Matthew Vasquez, Esq., and May Sena, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.Protest alleging that agency improperly bundled requirements is dismissed where the protesters have not shown that they were precluded from competing from the requirements or that the requirements are unsuitable for award to small businesses. 2.Protest challenging the agency's decision not to set aside the procurement for small businesses is dismissed where the protesters do not demonstrate that they are interested parties to challenge the agency's decision. 3.Protest challenging various terms of the solicitation as overly restrictive and/or unreasonable is dismissed where the protesters do not explain how the challenged terms prejudice their ability to submit a quotation or otherwise restrict competition.  DECISION AeroSage LLC, of Tampa, Florida, and SageCare, Inc., also of Tampa, Florida, each a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), jointly protest the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE605-18-Q-0201, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy, for the delivery of fuel products to four locations in New York.  The protesters raise numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND DLA issued the RFQ on April 9, 2018.  The solicitation seeks quotations for the delivery of various fuel products to four locations in New York.  RFQ at 5.  As amended, the RFQ includes seven contract line item numbers (CLINs), each of which is for a specific fuel product to be delivered to a specific location.  Id. at 5; RFQ, Amend. 001, at 3.  The agency is soliciting the CLINs using full and open competition and assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 324110, Petroleum Refineries, to the RFQ.  RFQ at 3.  The solicitation anticipates the award of multiple fixed-price indefinite-delivery requirements contracts with economic price adjustment with an ordering period beginning with contract award and ending on March 31, 2021.[1]  Id. at 3, 84. Vendors are permitted to submit quotations on a by-CLIN basis and the RFQ provides that each CLIN "will be evaluated and awarded independently from all other line items."  Id. at 88, 3 ("All line items included herein will be awarded to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable quote on a line-by-line basis."); Agency Resp. to GAO Req. for Clarification (hereinafter "Agency Resp. to GAO"), June 1, 2018, at 1 ("[V]endors could submit quotations on a CLIN-by-CLIN basis.").[2] The deadline for submission of quotations was 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20.[3]  RFQ at 1.  On April 20, prior to the time set for receipt of quotations, AeroSage and SageCare, which have the same owner, filed this joint protest challenging various terms of the solicitation.  On May 2, the agency requested dismissal of the protest.  On May 5, the protesters filed a response objecting to dismissal of the protest. DISCUSSION The protesters raise numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation, including allegations that DLA improperly bundled requirements, failed to set aside the solicitation for small business concerns, and included a variety of overly restrictive solicitation terms.  For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the protest. Bundling The protesters argue that DLA unlawfully bundled requirements.  Protest at 2.  Specifically, the protesters assert that the RFQ combines requirements that have been or are being performed through "separate small" contracts.  Id.  We dismiss this ground for failure to state a valid basis of protest.   The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) generally requires that solicitations permit full and open competition and contain restrictive provisions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the procuring agency's needs.  10 U.S.C.