AeroSage, LLC

B-416381 Aug 23, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AeroSage LLC, of Tampa, Florida, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protests various terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-18-R-0218, which was issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for delivery of fuel products to locations throughout New England. The protester raises numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest in part, sustain it in part, and deny it in part. We dismiss the protest in part, sustain it in part, and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AeroSage, LLC File:  B-416381 Date:  August 23, 2018 David M. Snyder, AeroSage, LLC, for the protester. Matthew Vasquez, Esq., and Christopher S. Colby, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency; and Sam Q. Le, Esq., Small Business Adminstration, for the agencies. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, 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 protester has not shown that it was precluded from competing for the requirements. 2.Protest challenging the agency’s decision not to set aside certain line items for small businesses is sustained where the market research to determine whether two or more small businesses would likely submit offers was based on incomplete information. 3.Protest challenging various terms of the solicitation as overly restrictive or unreasonable is dismissed where the protester does not explain how the challenged terms prejudice its ability to submit a proposal or otherwise restrict competition.  4.Protest asserting that the agency did not provide sufficient time for offerors to submit proposals is denied where the agency demonstrated that the time allotted was reasonable.  DECISION AeroSage LLC, of Tampa, Florida, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), protests various terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-18-R-0218, which was issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for delivery of fuel products to locations throughout New England.  The protester raises numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation. We dismiss the protest in part, sustain it in part, and deny it in part. BACKGROUND DLA issued the RFP on May 1, 2018, in accordance with the commercial item acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and the simplified acquisition procedures of FAR part 13.[1]  RFP, at 3.  The solicitation seeks proposals for the delivery of fuel to locations in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts.  Id. at 5-6.  The agency assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 324110 to the solicitation, which applies to petroleum refineries.  Id. at 1.  The solicitation includes 10 contract line item numbers (CLINs), each of which is for fuel to be delivered to a specific location.  Id. at 5‑6.  Vendors are permitted to submit proposals on a by‑CLIN basis, and the RFP anticipates the award of fixed-price indefinite‑delivery requirements contracts with economic price adjustments.  Id. 3, 6-13, 89.  The resulting period of performance begins with contract award, and ends on March 31, 2021.  Id. at 3.  As relevant here, the RFP states that all line items will be awarded on a CLIN basis to the offeror(s) submitting the lowest‑priced, technically acceptable offer.  Id. at 3.  Proposals were due by May 15, 2018.  Id. at 1, 3.  On May 15, prior to the time set for receipt of proposals, AeroSage filed this protest challenging various terms of the solicitation.    DISCUSSION The protester raises numerous challenges to the terms of the solicitation, including that DLA improperly bundled requirements, failed to set aside the solicitation for small business concerns, included overly restrictive solicitation terms, provided inaccurate estimates for the amount of fuel to be acquired, and did not allow enough time for offerors to respond to the solicitation.  For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the protest in part, sustain the protest in part, and deny it in part.  Bundling The protester argues that DLA unlawfully bundled requirements.  Protest at 2. Specifically, the protester asserts that the RFP improperly combines requirements that have been, or are being, performed through “separate small” contracts.  Id.  In response, the agency denies that its solicitation bundles requirements because the RFP “provides that DLA Energy will evaluate ‘offers on a line item‑by‑line item basis.’”  DLA Req. for Dismissal at 2.  Moreover, DLA explains that “[e]ach line item will be evaluated and awarded independently from all other line items.”  Id.