American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-281409, December 21,

Case: B-281409 Agency: Protester: American Artisan Productions, Inc., B Date: 1998-12-21 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-281409 Dec 21, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that solicitation's 15-day response period was inadequate is denied where: (1) the solicitation contemplated submission of offers for commercial items and related services and the contracting officer determined that 15 days was a reasonable time to prepare and submit proposals based upon her experience with a previous procurement for this requirement. (2) the requirement was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily 42 days before proposals were due. (3) no potential offerors other than the protester complained that the response period was too short. (4) five offers were received in a timely manner. The requirement was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on September 16. View Decision Matter of: American Artisan Productions, Inc. File: B-281409 Date: December 21, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION American Artisan Productions, Inc. (AAP) protests that the Federal Supply Service, General Services Administration (GSA), did not allow sufficient time for preparation of proposals in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. FCXM-T8-980002-N, for the lease of an exhibit booth and related services for several large-scale exhibition projects during fiscal year 1999. We deny the protest. The requirement was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on September 16, 1998. CBDNet Submission No. 250631, Sept. 16, 1998, at 1. On October 13, the RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside to all firms that responded to the CBD synopsis. RFP at 1; GSA Legal Report at 2. The RFP required that offers be submitted by October 28. RFP at 1. The RFP requested technical and price proposals for a fixed-price lease of a large exhibit booth that can be reconfigured into smaller booths; the exhibit booths will be used at three different trade fairs. RFP at 2, 6, 35. The RFP included options for the lease of booths for up to four additional shows and for preshow, direct mail marketing services. RFP at 2, 21-25. The agency wanted to lease commercial items; therefore, the RFP included a number of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions germane to acquisitions of commercial items. /1/ Contracting Officer Statement at 2; GSA Legal Report at 2. The protester states that the contracting officer telephoned AAP's president on October 22 to inform him that she was going to destroy the scale models AAP had submitted to GSA in response to the 1997 procurement for the same project and advised him that the RFP for the current requirement had already been issued; AAP's president requested that GSA return the models via Federal Express. Protest at 1. The protester states that, later that same day, the contracting officer informed AAP's president that she could not ship the models and that she would destroy them unless the protester picked them up. Id. The protester also states that, on October 22, it downloaded the RFP from the Internet, requested an extension of the proposal due date, and again requested the return of its models. Id. According to the protester, on October 26, it again requested a 15-day extension of the proposal due date. Id. at 2. Later on October 26, the protester says that it received a Federal Express package that contained its scale models, but they were completely destroyed; the protester notified the contracting officer of this occurrence. Id. The contracting officer did not grant AAP's request for an extension of the proposal due date. Id.; RFP amendment No. 1. Offers were received from five firms by the October 28 deadline. List of Offerors, October 28, 1998. AAP did not submit an offer, but filed this protest shortly before the closing time on October 28. The protester contends that the 15-day period between issuance of the RFP and the due date for receipt of proposals was insufficient time to prepare and submit a proposal. The protester also contends that the contracting officer further hindered AAP from submitting a timely proposal by improperly destroying the scale models that AAP had submitted in response to the previous solicitation for this work because AAP would have resubmitted those models as part of its proposal. Protest at 1, 2. Agencies generally must allow at least a 30-day response time for the receipt of proposals from the date of issuance of the RFP. FAR Sec. 5.203(c). However, an agency may allow fewer than 30 days to respond to an RFP when, as here, it is acquiring commercial items. Id.; FAR Sec. 12.205(c). When acquiring commercial items, the contracting officer should afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond; when establishing the solicitation response time, the contracting officer should consider the circumstances--such as the complexity, commerciality, availability, and urgency--of the individual acquisition. FAR Sec. 5.203(b).

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...