SageCare, Inc. (SPE605-20-R-0200)

B-418292.8 Jun 23, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION 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of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our decision in SageCare, Inc., B-418292.3, B-418292.4, Mar. 12, 2020 (unpublished decision), where we dismissed as untimely the firm's protest challenging the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-20-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for various types of fuel to be delivered to Department of Defense and federal civilian agency customers. The protester also challenged other aspects of the agency's conduct of the procurement. We deny the request for reconsideration because it fails to establish any material factual or legal errors with respect to the underlying decision dismissing the requester's protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  SageCare, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-418292.8 Date:  June 23, 2020 David M. Snyder, SageCare, Inc., for the protester. May Sena, Esq., and Matthew Vasquez, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, 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of Tampa, Florida, asks that we reconsider our decision in SageCare, Inc., B-418292.3, B-418292.4, Mar. 12, 2020 (unpublished decision), where we dismissed as untimely the firm’s protest challenging the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-20-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for various types of fuel to be delivered to Department of Defense and federal civilian agency customers.  The protester also challenged other aspects of the agency’s conduct of the procurement.  We deny the request for reconsideration because it fails to establish any material factual or legal errors with respect to the underlying decision dismissing the requester’s protest. 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 or disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard.  SageCare, Inc.; AeroSage, LLC--Recon., B-414168.4 et al., July 13, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 224 at 2; Veda, Inc.--Recon., B-278516.3, B-278516.4, July 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 12 at 4.   Timeliness The protester previously challenged the terms of the solicitation and now asks that we reconsider our dismissal of the protest as untimely.  Req. for Recon. at 3-4.  The deadline for final proposal submissions was November 19, 2019.  Agency Report, B‑418292.1, Tab 6, RFP at 1.[1]  Sagecare filed its protest on December 23.  Protest, B‑418292.3.  As noted in our decision, to be timely, challenges to the terms of a solicitation must be filed prior to the time set for receipt of proposals.  SageCare Inc., supra at 4‑5 (citing 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1)).  Our Office therefore dismissed the challenges to the solicitation as untimely as they were not raised prior to the closing date for proposal submissions.  Id. SageCare disputes our conclusion that its protest was untimely.  Req. for Recon. at 3.  Specifically, the protester states that its “written objections” to the solicitation “were included in the five page offer exception and objection letter submitted on November 18, 2019 with the offers . . . before the initial deadline for receipt of offers on November 19, 2019.”  Id.  However, the protester does not show that it filed a protest with the agency or our Office prior to the submission deadline.  Indeed, the only evidence the protester cites that is dated prior to the proposal submission deadline is a letter from AeroSage LLC[2] to the agency stating that “[t]his letter accompanies our offer . . . .”  Protest, B‑418292.3, attach. 2, AeroSage Proposal at 104.  Our prior decisions provide that “[t]o be regarded as a protest, a written statement need not state explicitly that it is in fact a protest, but must convey the intent to protest by an expression of dissatisfaction and a request for corrective action.”  Federal Marketing Office--Recon., B‑249097, B‑249097.3, Jan.