Sysco Corporation (SPE300-19-R-0011)

B-418466.2 Jul 06, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sysco Corporation, of Houston, Texas, requests that we reconsider our decision dismissing its protest alleging that the Defense Logistics Agency was unreasonable in rejecting the firm's proposal as late under solicitation No. SPE30019R0011, issued for food distribution services. Sysco argues that it had reason for failing to file comments on the agency report by the established deadline and that we should reconsider our dismissal based on those reasons. We deny the request. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Sysco Corporation--Reconsideration File:  B-418466.2 Date:  July 6, 2020 Alexander Saksen, Esq., Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, for the requester. Robert Schaper, Esq., and Sherine Bediako, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, 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 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 or information not previously considered. DECISION   Sysco Corporation, of Houston, Texas, requests that we reconsider our decision dismissing its protest alleging that the Defense Logistics Agency was unreasonable in rejecting the firm’s proposal as late under solicitation No. SPE30019R0011, issued for food distribution services.  Sysco argues that it had reason for failing to file comments on the agency report by the established deadline and that we should reconsider our dismissal based on those reasons. We deny the request. BACKGROUND Sysco filed a protest with our Office on February 11, 2020, arguing that the agency “inexplicably” rejected the firm’s proposal, despite Sysco following “the shipping instructions as outlined in the Statement of Work” including making a delivery attempt “by a commercial carrier within the stated hours of operation.”  Protest at 1.  Although Sysco filed initially without representation, on February 18, an attorney entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Sysco.  Electronic Protest Docketing System (Dkt.) No. 6.  On March 12, the agency submitted an agency report containing protected information, and a redacted copy of the report.  See generally Agency Report.  On March 16, our Office issued a notice suspending the deadline for submission of comments, and issued a protective order in the protest.  Notice of Extension of [Deadline] for Submitting Comments; Notice of Protective Order.  After admission of Sysco’s counsel to the protective order, our Office established a new due date for the filing of comments, extending the deadline to March 26.  Dkt. No. 16.  Sysco did not submit comments on the agency report by the established deadline, and, as a consequence, the protest was dismissed in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations.  Sysco Corporation, B‑418466, Mar. 27, 2020 (unpublished decision).  This request for reconsideration followed on April 6. DISCUSSION Sysco argues that its actions show that it did not intend to abandon its protest, such as hiring counsel, gaining admission of that counsel to a protective order, and communicating with our Office through the date set for submitting comments.  Request for Consideration at 3.  The requester also argues that our Office could have decided the protest based on the filings it had received.  Id. at 4-5.  Finally, Sysco argues that the firm’s outside attorney had logistical and technical difficulties in filing comments due to the COVID-19 “Stay at Home Order” in his home state, which difficulties, Sysco asserts, should not be held against it.  Id. at 5-6.  We have considered each argument, and find that none provide a basis for reconsideration. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration the requesting party must set out factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision is warranted, specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered.  4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a), (c).  A requester’s disagreement with our decision does not meet this standard.  Id.; Veda, Inc.--Recon., B-278516.3, B-278516.4, July 8, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 12 at 4.  Here, the requester does not set forth any factual or legal grounds upon which reversal or modification of the decision dismissing its protest is warranted.  As stated in our dismissal of this protest, the filing deadlines in our Regulations are prescribed under the authority of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984; their purpose is to enable us to comply with the statute’s mandate that we resolve protests expeditiously.  31 U.S.C. § 3554(a); Keymiaee Aero-Tech, Inc., B-274803.2, Dec.