Comspace Corporation, B-277540, October 24, 1997

B-277540 Oct 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency lost and therefore failed to consider an allegedly low-priced quote submitted by telefacsimile is denied where it is not certain that the quote was ever received by the agency and there is no evidence of any repeated mishandling by the agency of telefacsimile quotes. That DLA should have issued the purchase order to Comspace. The RFQ was issued by DLA under simplified acquisition procedures using the Defense Supply Center. The EBB is available to any vendor which has access to a computer. Which was posted on the EBB on June 12. Whose quote was low. It claims to have sent its quotation by fax machine to the contract specialist's attention on the morning of June 26. View Decision Matter of: Comspace Corporation File: B-277540 Date: October 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Comspace Corporation protests the issuance of a purchase order to Zeus Electronics under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP0960-97-Q-1828, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for certain digital microcircuits. The protester contends that it submitted a lower-priced quote than Zeus and, therefore, that DLA should have issued the purchase order to Comspace. We deny the protest. The RFQ was issued by DLA under simplified acquisition procedures using the Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC) electronic bulletin board (EBB) to solicit and receive quotes. The EBB is available to any vendor which has access to a computer, possesses a valid Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code (which it receives after registering with the agency), and has an active password. Vendors can submit quotes in response to RFQs issued by DLA under these automated procedures via the EBB or the Internet, or by telefacsimile (fax) transmission. The RFQ at issue, which was posted on the EBB on June 12, 1997, stated that the agency required 193 designated digital microcircuits for use in various aircraft and called for quotations to be furnished by the close of business on June 26. On June 18, the protester telephoned the agency and requested that the contract specialist send the firm a hard copy of the RFQ. On that same date, the contract specialist requested that the DSCC distribution office mail a copy of the solicitation to Comspace. The agency received two quotes by the close of business on June 26, including a quote from Zeus, but did not receive a quote from the protester. The agency issued a purchase order to Zeus, whose quote was low, on July 3. The protester contends that it submitted a quote for the solicited part number at a lower price than Zeus quoted. [1] Comspace alleges that although it requested a hard copy of the RFQ on four occasions, it never received the solicitation. The protester states that the contract specialist advised the vendor to submit the quote on company letterhead, and it claims to have sent its quotation by fax machine to the contract specialist's attention on the morning of June 26. To establish this transmission, Comspace has furnished a copy of what it states is its transmitted quote on which there appears a handwritten notation reading "[s]ent 6/26/97 8:41 AM." The protester claims that this is the fourth or fifth instance where DLA has advised Comspace of non-receipt of one of its offers and argues that its protest should be sustained because "[i]f, in fact, faxed documents are not being handled by the agency properly, this action is not the fault or negligence of this contractor." As noted above, DSCC states that it never received Comspace's quotation, and the agency has submitted an affidavit to our Office from the cognizant contract specialist in which she states that she did not receive a quotation from Comspace before either the June 26 requested date or the July 3 order date. The agency has also provided a copy of its agency source list for this microcircuit on which Comspace is listed as a source and, next to its name, is a handwritten notation reading "copy sent 18 June 97 in phone request by buyer." Our Office conducted a telephone hearing with the parties during which the protester's president stated that, while Comspace's fax machine may have the capability to generate a real-time confirmation of outgoing fax transmissions, [2] the protester does not use this option. Rather, it is Comspace's standard practice to make a handwritten notation, indicating the date and time of outgoing fax transmittals on the transmittal after it has been faxed. In this case, as noted above, a Comspace representative wrote a date and time on its copy of the quote. Comspace's president also stated that the company's fax machine maintains an internal log or status report of transmissions, and is capable of storing a record of up to 30 transmittals. At our request, Comspace submitted a copy of this status report to our Office.