Ecology Mir Group (W91ZRS-20-Q-A013)

B-418543.2 Jul 16, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ecology Mir Group (Ecology), of Fairfax, Virginia, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Ecology Mir Group, B-418543, Apr. 8, 2020 (unpublished decision), regarding the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with hotel vendors. In its protest, Ecology ostensibly argued that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation. Our Office dismissed the protest because it was actually an untimely protest of the terms of the solicitation. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Ecology Mir Group--Reconsideration File:  B-418543.2 Date:  July 16, 2020 Adham Yusupov, for the protester. Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains either errors of fact or law or information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION   Ecology Mir Group (Ecology), of Fairfax, Virginia, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Ecology Mir Group, B-418543, Apr. 8, 2020 (unpublished decision), regarding the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with hotel vendors.  In its protest, Ecology ostensibly argued that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation.  Our Office dismissed the protest because it was actually an untimely protest of the terms of the solicitation. We deny the request for reconsideration. The agency issued the solicitation on January 2, 2020, to establish BPAs for lodging members of the Connecticut Army National Guard while they attend training.  Req. for Dismissal, exh. G-1, Request for Quotations (RFQ) at 2.  The RFQ provided in relevant part:  The Connecticut National Guard, is seeking to establish multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) with hotel vendors that are located within ten (13) miles of the William A. O’Neil State Armory, 360 Broad Street, Hartford, CT 06105 in the Manchester/Vernon area to provide lodging accommodations for eligible [Connecticut National Guard] members attending Unit Training Assembly  . . . . Id.  Manchester and Vernon are towns in the state of Connecticut near Hartford.  Req. for Dismissal at 2. The closing date for the receipt of quotations was January 9.  RFQ at 1.  Ecology was notified that the agency established a BPA with Mother Daughter Contracting Services.  On March 5, Ecology filed a protest with our Office after the agency advised the protester during a debriefing that it had rejected the protester’s quotation as unacceptable because the hotel space it offered was not in the Manchester/Vernon area. Ecology’s protest principally argued that the agency unreasonably rejected its quotation because, as required by the solicitation, the properties it offered were within 13 miles of the William A. O’Neil State Armory.  Protest at 1.  The protester acknowledged that the solicitation also indicated that the property was required to be in the Manchester/Vernon area, but argues that this was an alternative location as the two requirements were effectively contradictory.  Id.; Response to Req. for Dismissal at 1. Our decision concluded that the solicitation was ambiguous concerning the precise distance a proposed property could be from the armory--the solicitation indicated both 10 and 13 miles as limits.  See Ecology Mir Group, supra at 2 n.1.  We found, however, that the solicitation was unambiguous with respect to the requirement for the property to be in Manchester or Vernon, portions of which are within 13 miles of the armory.  Id. at 2.  Our decision went on to note, in the alternative, that even if the protester were correct that the solicitation was ambiguous with respect to the requirement that Ecology was challenging, such an ambiguity was a patent ambiguity that was apparent on the face of the solicitation.  Id. at 2-3.  That is to say, if, as the protester suggests, the solicitation’s requirements were contradictory, that contradiction was obvious from reading the solicitation.  Id. Our regulations require that protests of the terms of a solicitation, including protests challenging patent ambiguities, must be filed prior to the time for receipt of proposals.  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1); Cleveland Telecomms.