SageCare, Inc. (SPE605-20-R-0202)

B-418325 Mar 05, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SageCare, Inc., a small business, of Tampa, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-20-R-0202, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for various fuel products. SageCare alleges a variety of errors in the solicitation. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  SageCare, Inc. File:  B-418325 Date:  March 5, 2020 David M. Snyder, SageCare, Inc., for the protester. Jacqueline Neumann, Esq., Matthew Vasquez, Esq., May Sena, Esq., and Howard M. Kaufer, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency failed to provide sufficient time for offerors to submit proposals is denied where the record does not demonstrate that the amount of time provided was unreasonable. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s use of a requirements contract in this procurement is denied where the record does not demonstrate that the agency’s exercise of discretion was unreasonable. DECISION   SageCare, Inc., a small business, of Tampa, Florida, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE605-20-R-0202, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for various fuel products.  SageCare alleges a variety of errors in the solicitation.  We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on October 18, 2019, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and subpart 13.5, for the supply and delivery of various fuel products for the Department of Defense and federal civilian agencies in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania.  RFP at 1-2.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of fixed-price requirements contracts for 11 contract line item numbers (CLINs).  Id. at 2.  All CLINs were set-aside for small business concerns.  Id. at 16. The ordering period for the contracts was from the date of contract award to March 31, 2021.  Id. at 2, 5, 133.  The solicitation advised that each CLIN would be evaluated and awarded separately on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, considering technical capability and price.  Id. at 138.  Initial proposals were due on November 18, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).  Id. at 4.  On November 18, at 1:08 p.m. SageCare submitted its proposal via email.  In the email transmitting its proposal, SageCare also submitted a letter to the contract specialist that it characterized as SageCare’s exceptions and objections to the terms of the solicitation.  Protester’s Response to Agency Request for Dismissal, attach. A, Proposal and Objections.  At 2:59 p.m. (also on November 18), SageCare sent another email to the contract specialist with an agency-level protest.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, SageCare Agency Protest Email.  This agency-level protest included, verbatim, the arguments raised in SageCare’s exceptions and objections letter.  AR, Tab 6A, SageCare Agency Protest. On November 21, the agency responded to SageCare’s agency-level protest.  AR, Tab 8, Agency Protest Decision.  The agency dismissed one protest ground as a matter of contract administration, and the remaining grounds were dismissed as untimely.  Id. at 1-2.  Specifically, the agency explained that the contract specialist did not receive the email with SageCare’s agency-level protest until 4:09 p.m. ET, after the solicitation’s 3:00 p.m. ET deadline for receipt of proposals.  Id. at 1. On December 2, SageCare filed its protest with our Office raising the same arguments that it raised in its agency-level protest.  DISCUSSION SageCare raises several challenges to the reasonableness of the agency’s conduct of this procurement and to the terms of the solicitation.  As discussed below, we deny two of the allegations and dismiss the remaining protest grounds because they fail to state a valid basis of protest.[2]  Although we do not specifically address all of SageCare’s arguments, we have fully considered all of them and find they afford no basis on which to sustain the protest.[3]  Timeliness As a preliminary matter, DLA maintains that SageCare’s protest to our Office was untimely because its agency-level protest was not timely filed with the agency and was filed more than 10 days after adverse agency action.  Agency Request for Dismissal; Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3-6.  We disagree.  Where a protest first has been timely filed with a contracting activity, any subsequent protest to our Office, to be considered timely, must be filed within 10 calendar days of “actual or constructive knowledge of initial adverse agency action.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Here, the record shows that SageCare’s agency-level protest (which was filed at 2:59 p.m.