Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., B-280980, December 14, 1998

B-280980 Dec 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency failed to consider quotation allegedly sent by facsimile is denied where the record does not show that the agency received the quotation. The protester contacted the agency regarding the status of the procurement and was told that DSCC intended to issue a purchase order to QCC at a price of $950 per unit. Was lower in price. Procurement personnel have access to two "floor model" facsimile machines and an electronic facsimile system called "FACSys. " which is integrated into the DSCC computer system. Buyers and clerks are responsible for sorting documents received by the floor machines into trays for the appropriate buying unit. No log of incoming correspondence is maintained. View Decision Matter of: Advanced Seal Technology, Inc. File: B-280980 Date: December 14, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Advanced Seal Technology, Inc. (AST) protests the issuance of a purchase order to Quality Control Corporation (QCC) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO760-98-Q-1478, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency for seal assemblies. AST contends that it submitted the low-priced quotation in response to the solicitation. We deny the protest. On July 7, 1998, the agency issued the RFQ for spring-loaded shaft seal assemblies, with a list of three approved sources and their corresponding part numbers. A synopsis prepared for the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) identified the buyer, with her telephone and facsimile numbers. The RFQ itself listed a different facsimile number in the address box for the contracting activity, the Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC). On September 2, the protester contacted the agency regarding the status of the procurement and was told that DSCC intended to issue a purchase order to QCC at a price of $950 per unit. The protester asked the agency what had happened to its quotation, which, it asserted, was lower in price. After a review of the file, the buyer advised AST that it had no record of receiving a quotation from AST. This protest followed. AST has submitted affidavits from its president stating that, on August 6, it sent a quotation to one of the buyer's facsimile numbers /1/ and that, on August 14, it sent an amended quotation, for an increased quantity, to the facsimile number for DSCC listed in the RFQ. AST has provided no record of having sent the facsimile quote other than a copy of its telephone bill for August, which lists a call to the DSCC facsimile number on August 14. At the request of our Office, DSCC provided information on its procedures for handling and safeguarding quotations. According to DSCC, procurement personnel have access to two "floor model" facsimile machines and an electronic facsimile system called "FACSys," which is integrated into the DSCC computer system. Affidavit of James W. Patterson, exhibit A to agency letter dated Oct. 23, 1998 at 1 (Patterson affidavit). Buyers and clerks are responsible for sorting documents received by the floor machines into trays for the appropriate buying unit, for later delivery; no log of incoming correspondence is maintained. With regard to FACSys, 25 to 30 buyers share the same telephone number, and transmissions to that number are displayed on the screen of each buyer's personal computer. Buyers are responsible for retrieving FACSys information from their computer screens; sometimes a clerk retrieves the information by printing a copy for delivery to the buyer. In all cases, a hard copy of each quote is printed, after which the electronic correspondence is deleted. Id. FACSys does create a record of incoming transmissions. Affidavit of Carolyn M. Warren, exhibit B to agency letter dated Oct. 23, 1998 at 1. While AST asserts that it sent its amended quotation to the buyer's FACSys number on August 14, the FACSys log of incoming calls shows only one call on August 14 from an unidentified telephone number in AST's 815 area code, and it is to an extension different from any of those listed in the RFQ or the CBD synopsis. Thus, apart from the protester's own sworn statement, the only evidence that AST submitted a quotation is the entry on AST's August telephone bill, which shows a call to the FACSys number on August 14. Firms submitting quotations have a duty to see that their quotations reach the designated government office on time. Southern CAD/CAM, B-244745, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 453. In particular, quoters using facsimile transmissions to file documents assume the risk of nonreceipt by the agency. See, e.g., Huntington Valley Indus., B-274303, Nov. 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 206 at 3. Here, the record does not establish receipt of AST's quotation by the agency.