AeroSage, LLC

B-417529.3 Oct 04, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AeroSage, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, requests that we reconsider our decision in AeroSage, LLC--Costs, B-417529.2, June 7, 2019 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed its request that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE605-19-Q-0234, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as a small business set-aside, for the delivery of fuel to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Battle Creek, Michigan. In its request, AeroSage maintains that reconsideration should be granted because our Office's decision contains errors of fact and law. We dismiss the request because it fails to provide a basis for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AeroSage, LLC--Reconsideration File:  B-417529.3 Date:  October 4, 2019 David M. Snyder, for the protester. Matthew Vasquez, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is dismissed where the requesting party repeats arguments previously made and generally disagrees with our prior decision. DECISION AeroSage, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa, Florida, requests that we reconsider our decision in AeroSage, LLC—Costs, B-417529.2, June 7, 2019 (unpublished decision), in which we dismissed its request that our Office recommend it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest challenging request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPE605-19-Q-0234, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as a small business set-aside, for the delivery of fuel to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Battle Creek, Michigan.[1] In its request, AeroSage maintains that reconsideration should be granted because our Office’s decision contains errors of fact and law. We dismiss the request because it fails to provide a basis for reconsideration. On April 26, the agency issued RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0231 as a SDVOSB set-aside for this requirement.  On April 30, DLA cancelled that RFQ because the agency did not receive quotations meeting the agency’s requirement for a small business refinery in the Michigan area.  That same day, DLA resolicited for the subject requirement, under RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0234, this time, as a small business set-aside.  Minutes before quotations were due, AeroSage filed a protest with our Office that was docketed as B-417529, arguing that the agency’s cancellation and resolicitation was improper.  Later that day, DLA notified AeroSage that it submitted the lowest-priced quotation in response to the solicitation, RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0234.[2]  On May 1, AeroSage withdrew its protest; AeroSage stated that DLA agreed to take proper corrective action by awarding it a contract under RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0231 and agreed to reimburse AeroSage’s $350 protest filing fee.  Notification of Withdrawal, B-417529, May 1, 2019, at 1.  On May 10, our Office issued a confirmation of withdrawal for AeroSage’s protest. On May 16, AeroSage filed a request that our Office recommend the reimbursement of the reasonable costs of filing its protest, including its $350 filing fee.  On May 31, the agency responded to AeroSage’s request by providing, among other things, that AeroSage was mistaken that DLA agreed to take corrective action in response to AeroSage’s protest.  Agency Response, May 31, 2019, at 1-3.  On June 3, AeroSage submitted its response to the agency’s filing, in which AeroSage:  requested a complete agency report; argued that DLA did, in fact, take corrective action; filed a supplemental protest challenging DLA’s evaluation under RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0231 and the award of a contract under RFQ No. SPE605-19-Q-0234; and asserted that it was suspending its withdrawal of its protest. On June 7, our Office dismissed AeroSage’s request for a recommendation of reimbursement of costs.  AeroSage, LLC--Costs, B-417529.2, June 7, 2019 (unpublished decision).  We stated that pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3557, and our Bid Protest Regulations, “a recommendation for the payment of the reasonable costs of pursuing a protest is expressly predicated upon a determination by our Office that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with a statute or regulation, 31 U.S.C. § 3554(c)(1); 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d), or where the agency has decided to take corrective action in response to a protest, and our Office has dismissed the protest on that basis, 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(e).”  AeroSage, LLC--Costs, supra at 2.  We concluded that because AeroSage was issued a purchase order under RFQ No.