SageCare, Inc.

B-417138.5 Apr 12, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AeroSage, LLC, a small business of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our February 15, 2019, dismissal of its protest challenging the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-19-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for petroleum fuel. AeroSage contends that our decision contained multiple errors of fact and law. We deny the request. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of: AeroSage, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-417138.5 Date: April 12, 2019 David M. Snyder for the protester. May Sena, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a protest for failure to submit comments on the agency report is denied where the requester does not show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law. DECISION AeroSage, LLC, a small business of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our February 15, 2019, dismissal of its protest challenging the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-19-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for petroleum fuel. AeroSage contends that our decision contained multiple errors of fact and law. We deny the request. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 22, 2018, for the delivery of various commercial fuels and distillates. Contracting Officer's Statement/Memorandum of Law at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFP, at 1. Proposals were due November 26, by 3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. RFP at 1. AeroSage timely filed its initial protest on November 26, contending that the solicitation contained various errors.1 On December 21, DLA filed its report responding to the protest grounds. Because AeroSage elected to proceed without an attorney, a full version of the agency report was provided to our Office, while a redacted version of the report was furnished to the protester. The same day, AeroSage filed an objection to the agency's redacted version of the report by posting an unredacted copy of AeroSage's proposal in our Electronic Protest Docketing System (EPDS).2 AeroSage Redaction Objections, Dec. 21, 2018. AeroSage also filed a document alleging that DLA violated the Procurement Integrity Act. AeroSage Procurement Integrity Act Filing, Dec. 21, 2018, at 1. Neither of these filings were styled as supplemental protests. At 5:31 p.m. on December 31, AeroSage filed its comments on the agency report, and at 5:46 p.m., AeroSage filed what it termed a supplemental protest that duplicated its comments. Response to AR, Dec. 31, 2018; Supp. Protest, Dec. 31, 2018. On January 11, 2019, AeroSage filed yet another supplemental protest alleging that DLA failed to conduct meaningful discussions. Supp. Protest, Jan. 11, 2019, at 2. On February 15, we dismissed AeroSage's protest for failing to comment within ten days after the agency filed its report. AeroSage, LLC, B-417138 et al., Feb. 15, 2019 (unpublished decision). Included within this dismissal, we also dismissed AeroSage's allegation of a Procurement Integrity Act violation because the EPDS docket is viewable only by parties to a protest and thus there was no disclosure of AeroSage's proposal information. Id. at 2. In addition, we dismissed AeroSage's allegation that DLA failed to engage in meaningful negotiations because, as filed with our Office, this contention did not establish a valid basis for challenging the agency's action. Id. AeroSage then filed its request for reconsideration on February 16. DISCUSSION In its request for reconsideration, AeroSage raises multiple arguments alleging that our decision contains errors of fact and law. For example, AeroSage argues that we improperly dismissed its protest for failing to timely file comments and ignored its objections to the agency's redactions to the agency report. AeroSage also argues that we erred in dismissing its supplemental protest of DLA's conduct of negotiations, and disputes our conclusions with respect to its allegation that DLA violated the Procurement Integrity Act. In addition, AeroSage argues that we ignored a protest it contends was filed by its affiliated company, SageCare, Inc.3 We have considered all of AeroSage's arguments for reconsideration and find that none of them provide a basis to modify or reverse our decision. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration 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). The repetition of arguments made during our consideration of the original protest and disagreement with our decision do not meet this standard.