Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. (SPE607-24-R-0200)

B-423326.2 Jul 07, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Wright Brothers Aero, Inc., a small business of Vandalia, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Premier Jet Services DAY, LLC, a small business of Vandalia, Ohio, under solicitation No. SPE607-24-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for aircraft refueling at James M. Cox Dayton International Airport (KDAY) in Dayton, Ohio. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal and failed to reasonably and properly implement corrective action in response to a prior protest. We dismiss the protest because it is untimely. View Decision Decision Matter of: Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. File: B-423326.2 Date: July 7, 2025 Kevin M. Keeley, Jr. for the protester. Deanna Everett, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal is dismissed as untimely where the protester filed the protest more than 10 days after the firm knew or should have known the basis of protest. DECISION Wright Brothers Aero, Inc., a small business of Vandalia, Ohio, protests the award of a contract to Premier Jet Services DAY, LLC, a small business of Vandalia, Ohio, under solicitation No. SPE607-24-R-0200, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for aircraft refueling at James M. Cox Dayton International Airport (KDAY) in Dayton, Ohio. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal and failed to reasonably and properly implement corrective action in response to a prior protest. We dismiss the protest because it is untimely. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on June 13, 2024, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, for 723,060 gallons of jet fuel at KDAY. See Req. for Dismissal (RFD) at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. See Supp. RFD at 3. On February 4, 2025, the agency notified the protester that award had been made to Premier. Supp. RFD, exh. 4, February Award Notice at 1. The notice provided the contract award price and reflected that only two offerors--Wright Brothers and Premier--had submitted proposals. Id. at 1‑2. The notice also advised the agency's evaluation determined that “Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. did not offer the total lowest price technically acceptable for all line items solicited.” Id. at 1. The agency subsequently confirmed in a written debriefing, dated February 6, that both proposals were technically acceptable and award had been made to Premier as the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. Protest, exh. 5, Debriefing, B-423326, Feb. 11, 2025. Wright Brothers filed a protest with our Office on February 11, challenging the agency's evaluation and award decision. Wright Bros. Aero, Inc., B-423326, Mar. 5, 2025 (unpublished decision). In response, the agency advised our office that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating proposals, reopening discussions if necessary, and issuing a new award decision. Id. at 1. As a result of the agency's proposed corrective action, we dismissed the protest as academic on March 5. Id. at 1‑2. On April 15, in response to an inquiry from Wright Brothers regarding the status of the procurement, the contracting officer advised the protester that the corrective action had been “completed and closed” and that the “KDAY [contract] has been awarded.” RFD, exh. 2, April 15 Emails at 1. When Wright Brothers asked whether it would “be receiving communication on who has won the award,” the contracting officer responded that “[t]he awardee was the same as the original awardee” and that she was unsure if there would be any additional communication until she could “get with Legal.” Id. On April 28, Wright Brothers emailed the contracting officer, requesting an update and asking: “Is it possible to get a debrief since there should have been a corrective action?” RFD, exh. 3, April 28-29 Emails. The next day, the contracting officer responded, “I will forward up to Legal.” Id. On May 25, having received no further information from the agency, Wright Brothers filed this protest with our Office. Protest at 1. The agency then requested that we dismiss the protest as untimely and for failing to state a valid basis of protest. RFD at 1-2. DISCUSSION Wright Brothers's current protest challenges the agency's evaluation and award decision, as well as the agency's implementation of the corrective action in response to the firm's earlier protest.[1] Protest at 1-2; Resp. to RFD at 2-7. The agency contends the protest is untimely and should be dismissed. We agree. Our Bid Protest Regulations contain strict rules for the timely submission of protests.