United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Triad Logistics Services Corporation 

File: B-406416.2

Date: June 19, 2012

Edward J. Kinberg, Esq., Kinberg & Associates, LLC, for the protester.

Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Decision denying protest is affirmed on reconsideration where protester fails to 

demonstrate that decision erred in requiring protester to demonstrate prejudice.

DECISION

Triad Logistics Services Corporation, of Melbourne, Florida, requests 

reconsideration of our March 19, 2012 decision denying its protest challenging the 

award of a contract to Shilo Services, Incorporated, of Cedar Park, Texas, under 

request for proposals (RFP) No. FA480-11-R-0015, issued by the Department of the 

Air Force for transient aircraft services.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

As discussed in our decision, the solicitation contemplated the award of a contract 

with a base period of 9 months and four 1-year options. RFP at 4-11. Award was 

to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable 

proposal, with an acceptable level of past performance. Id. at 19. Price was to be 

evaluated by adding the offeror’s price for the 9 month base period to the offeror’s 

price for the four 1-year options; i.e., price was to be evaluated on the basis of a 

57 month period of performance. Id. at 21.

After receiving proposals in response to the solicitation, the agency decided to 

request revised proposals. Agency Request for Dismissal, attach. 1, Contracting

Officer Memorandum for Record (COMFR), ¶ 2.e. The acceptance and evaluation 

of revised proposals delayed the procurement. This delay, together with a 

budgetary requirement that the base period conclude during the 2012 fiscal year, 

had the effect of reducing the base period from nine months to seven months. 

Id. ¶ 2.c. To account for this reduction, the agency evaluated price on the basis of a 
Page 2 B-406416.2 

55 month period of performance.

1

 Id. ¶ 2.g. Based on this evaluation, the agency 

selected Shilo for award. Id.2

In its protest, Triad challenged the award to Shilo on the ground that the agency 

improperly failed to both amend the solicitation to reflect the reduced base period of 

performance, and to obtain revised pricing based on the reduced base period of 

performance. Protest at 6.

As stated in our decision, Triad did not assert that it would have reduced its unit 

pricing by an amount that would have overcome Shilo’s price advantage, and Triad 

did not offer any evidence to establish that it was prejudiced by the agency’s failure

to issue an amendment that sought revised pricing for a reduced base period. 

Triad Logistics Servs., Corp., B-406416, Mar. 19, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 118 at 3. As 

we also stated, our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester 

demonstrates a reasonable possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the protester 

demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a substantial 

chance of receiving the award. Id.; see also Marine Group Boat Works, LLC, 

B-404277, B-404277.2, Jan. 19, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 23 at 5; Online Video Serv., 

Inc., Oct. 15, 2010, B-403332, 2010 CPD ¶ 244 at 2. Because Triad failed to 

establish that it was prejudiced by the agency’s actions, we denied the protest.

In its request for reconsideration, Triad argues that our prior decision warrants 

reversal because, according to Triad, we errantly concluded that in order to have 

established prejudice, Triad must have alleged that it would have reduced its 

pricing. Request for Reconsideration at 2. In this regard, Triad contends that,

because “the base period of the work [had] been significantly shortened it is . . . 

reasonable to assume that all offerors would have increased their prices and that 

Triad may have become the low offeror after price revisions were submitted to the 

Agency.”

3

 Id. Based on this rationale, Triad maintains that it was prejudiced by the 

agency’s failure to amend the solicitation and obtain revised pricing. Id.

 1 The solicitation defined the units on which pricing was to be based, RFP at 4-12, 

and, therefore, the offerors’ unit pricing would be evident from their proposals. The 

agency used each offeror’s unit pricing to calculate each offeror’s evaluated price 

for a 55 month period of performance. COMFR ¶ 2.g.

2 The agency determined that Shilo offered the lowest price for both a 55 month 

period of performance and a 57 month period of performance. COMFR ¶ 2.h.

3 Triad reasons that offerors would increase their pricing because “a shortened 

performance period can increase the cost of work as the contractor has shorter 

period in which to recover its home office overhead and other indirect costs 

associated with obtaining the award.” Request for Reconsideration at 3-4.
Page 3 B-406416.2 

To prevail on a request for reconsideration, the requesting party must either show 

that our decision contains an error of fact or law, or present information not 

previously considered that warrants the decision’s reversal or modification. 

4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a) (2012). In order to provide a basis for reconsideration, 

additional information not previously considered must have been unavailable to the 

requesting party when the initial protest was being considered. Allstate Van & 

Storage, Inc--Recon., B-270744.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 72 at 2. A party’s 

failure to make all arguments or submit all information available during the course of 

the initial protest undermines the goals of our bid protest forum--to produce fair and 

equitable decisions based on consideration of all parties’ arguments on a fully 

developed record--and cannot justify reconsideration of our prior decision. 

Department of the Army--Recon., B-237742.2, June 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 546 at 4.

Here, Triad's request for reconsideration is based on arguments that were available 

during the initial protest, but were not presented at that time. That is, during the 

initial protest, Triad could have asserted that prejudice would have occurred based 

on Triad’s belief that offerors would raise their pricing in response to a two month 

reduction of the base period. Accordingly, Triad’s request does not provide a basis 

for reconsideration.

Moreover, even accepting for the sake of argument Triad’s position that offerors’ 

would raise their pricing in response to a two month reduction to the base period, 

Triad has failed to explain why Triad--like the other offerors--would not 

commensurately raise its pricing, such that its evaluated price would remain higher 

than Shilo’s evaluated price. In this regard, Triad has asserted that it is “reasonable 

to assume that all offerors would have increased their prices.” Request for 

Reconsideration at 2 (emphasis added). Triad has not asserted--or provided any 

basis to conclude--that Triad would not raise its pricing in response to a two month 

reduction in the base period. Thus, Triad’s argument that offerors’ would raise their 

pricing in response to a reduced base period, in addition to being an argument that 

Triad could have made during the initial consideration of the protest, does not alter 

our view of the record, and does not provide a basis for reconsideration.

Finally, we observe that Triad apparently misinterprets our decision by reading it to 

convey that the only way that Triad could have established prejudice was to assert 

that Triad would have lowered its pricing. See Request for Reconsideration at 2. 

Although the decision noted that Triad had not asserted that it would have reduced 

its pricing in response to an amendment to the solicitation, the basis on which we 

denied the protest was that Triad offered no evidence of any kind to support the 

required showing of prejudice.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel