AeroSage, LLC

B-417238.5 May 15, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SageCare, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our decision in SageCare, Inc., B-417238.4, Feb. 14, 2019, (unpublished decision), where we dismissed its protest challenging the award of a contract to Tayrona Oil, Inc., a small business, of West Palm Beach, Florida, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. SPE605-19-Q-0272, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for biodiesel fuel. In its protest, SageCare argued that the agency unreasonably withdrew a previously issued notice of corrective action and improperly failed to evaluate SageCare's lower priced quotation. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  SageCare, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-417238.5 Date:  May 15, 2019 David M. Snyder, SageCare, Inc., for the protester. Matthew Vasquez, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Young S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing a protest as untimely is denied where the requester does not show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law. DECISION SageCare, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our decision in SageCare, Inc., B-417238.4, Feb. 14, 2019, (unpublished decision), where we dismissed its protest challenging the award of a contract to Tayrona Oil, Inc., a small business, of West Palm Beach, Florida, under request for quotation (RFQ) No. SPE605-19-Q-0272, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for biodiesel fuel.  In its protest, SageCare argued that the agency unreasonably withdrew a previously issued notice of corrective action and improperly failed to evaluate SageCare’s lower priced quotation.  We deny the request. BACKGROUND DLA issued the RFQ on January 4, 2019, for 6,000 gallons of biofuel.  RFQ at 1.  On January 10, the agency notified Mr. David Snyder, the president of SageCare, and also president of the firm AeroSage, LLC, that the resulting delivery order would be issued to Tayrona.  Email from Agency to AeroSage, Jan. 8. 2019 (10:30 a.m.).  On January 8, AeroSage filed a protest challenging that order.  AeroSage Protest (B‑417238.1).  On January 10, SageCare attempted to file a supplemental protest to the (B‑417238.1) protest that was filed by AeroSage.  SageCare Filing (Jan. 10, 2019) at 1-3.  On January 16, our Office notified Mr. Snyder, via e-mail, of the following:  “Neither EPDS [the Electronic Protest Docketing System], nor our Bid Protest Regulations contemplate the filing of a supplemental protest by a firm other than the firm that filed the initial protest.”  Email from GAO to Mr. Snyder, Jan. 16, 2019 (1:39 p.m.) at 1.  We also explained that if SageCare did not notify our Office of its intent to file a separate protest by close of business on January 16, that its protest would be removed from our system.[1]  Id.  On January 23, DLA notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action in response to AeroSage’s (B-417238.1) protest.  Corrective Action Notice at 1.  AeroSage objected to the agency’s notice of corrective action that same day.  AeroSage Response at 1-7.  On February 1, the agency withdrew its notice of corrective action.  Corrective Action Notice Withdrawal at 1.  SageCare separately filed the protest that is the subject of this request for reconsideration on February 8.  SageCare Protest (B‑417238.4).  Our Office dismissed SageCare’s (B-417238.4) protest as untimely on February 14, because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after SageCare knew the basis for its protest.  SageCare, Inc., supra at 1.  This request to reconsider our dismissal of February 14 followed. DISCUSSION In its request for reconsideration, SageCare raises various challenges.  For example, SageCare argues that our decision should be reconsidered because it contains errors of law and fact.  In this regard, SageCare asserts: [T]he facts which were articulated in the protest grounds were not considered since at the time of [the] timely supplemental (See B-417238.1 Protest Docket 34, B-417238.2) protest . . . SageCare had a likely chance of being the awardee, as an intervenor, if the AeroSage protest failed.  SageCare Request for Recon. at 2.  Additionally, SageCare contends that, “the decision did not consider and erred in fact and law the articulated ground for protest being the 4 CFR § 21.0 (e) adverse action of Agency reversing course in no longer pleading that the AeroSage protested allegations were correct and no longer warrant corrective remedy.”  Id.