About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-418292.7 1 (2020-06-16)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaebfu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 



GO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
441 G St. N.W.                                                Comptroller General
Washington, DC 20548                                          of the United States




Decision


Matter of: AeroSage, LLC--Reconsideration

File:       B-418292.7

Date:       June 16, 2020

David M. Snyder, for the protester.
Jacqueline Neumann, Esq., Matthew Vasquez, Esq., May Sena, Esq., and Howard M.
Kaufer, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, 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.
DECISION

AeroSage LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Tampa,
Florida, requests that our Office reconsider our decision, AeroSage LLC, B-418292 et
al., Feb. 27, 2020, 2020 CPD T 77, in which we denied the protest of 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 requests that our Office
reconsider its protest challenging other aspects of the agency's conduct of the
procurement.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

In our prior decision, we denied in part and dismissed in part AeroSage's protest of the
terms of the solicitation and its challenges to other aspects of the agency's conduct of
the procurement. We denied AeroSage's protest that the amount of time for offerors to
submit proposals was unreasonable because the record did not demonstrate that the
amount of time was unreasonable. AeroSage, LLC, supra at 5-6. We also denied the
protester's challenge of the agency's use of a requirements contract in this procurement