Williams-Trane Company, Inc., B-283522, November 22, 1999

B-283522 Nov 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where protester's submission establishing its technical acceptability was also received by the agency after the due date. The protester argues that additional technical information and revisions provided by RNK after the due date for receipt of quotations constituted an untimely modification that should not have been solicited or accepted by the agency. Was conducted as a commercial item procurement under simplified acquisition procedures. Quotations and descriptive technical information were due by June 11. FAR Sec. 52.212-1(f) provides that late offers or modification of offers generally will not be considered. Was advised that the descriptive literature and technical information required by the RFQ was not required to be submitted at the same time as the rest of the quote. View Decision Matter of: Williams-Trane Company, Inc. File: B-283522 Date: November 22, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Williams-Trane Company, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to RNK International under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACW01-99-T-0145, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purchase of air conditioning equipment for installation at the Jim Woodruff Powerhouse located in Chattahoochee, Florida. The protester argues that additional technical information and revisions provided by RNK after the due date for receipt of quotations constituted an untimely modification that should not have been solicited or accepted by the agency. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on May 21, 1999, was conducted as a commercial item procurement under simplified acquisition procedures. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The RFQ contained the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision entitled "Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items," which requires vendors to provide a technical description of items offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the solicitation requirements through the submission of product literature or other documents if necessary. FAR Sec. 52.212-1(b)(4). Quotations and descriptive technical information were due by June 11, 1999. FAR Sec. 52.212-1(f) provides that late offers or modification of offers generally will not be considered. The protester states that its representative spoke with the contract specialist on June 11, prior to the time set for receipt of quotations, and was advised that the descriptive literature and technical information required by the RFQ was not required to be submitted at the same time as the rest of the quote. Affidavit of Protester's Sales Manager, Oct. 1, 1999, at 2. According to the contract specialist, he advised the protester to submit its signed and dated offer and to furnish the technical data as soon as possible. The contract specialist maintains that he did not advise the protester that the due date and time for quotations had been extended or waived. Affidavit of Contract Specialist, Oct. 8, 1999, at 1. The following four quotations were received by June 11: Williams-Trane $79,084 RNK $66,000 Ferguson Enterprises $45,094 AC Industrial, Inc. $44,051 Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The quotations submitted by RNK, Ferguson and AC were accompanied by the required technical information. The protester submitted its price quotation on June 11, but failed to submit any technical information describing its proposed equipment until June 15. The protester maintains that it submitted the technical data without further conversation with the agency. Affidavit of Protester's Sales Manager, supra. However, the agency reports that it contacted the protester and left several messages to remind the protester that the technical data had not been received. Affidavit of Contract Specialist, supra. After evaluating the technical/descriptive information provided by the vendors, on June 24, the evaluators recommended that the quotes from Ferguson and AC be rejected for failure to demonstrate that their proposed equipment met the technical requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab D. RNK's quote met the requirements of the RFQ with the exception of the condensing unit. Id. The equipment proposed by the protester met the RFQ specifications. Id. After reviewing the evaluators' comments, the agency decided that it was in the best interest of the government to contact Ferguson, AC and RNK to discuss the deficiencies noted by the evaluators, and to afford them an opportunity to submit revisions to their technical information by June 30. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. These vendors were not allowed to change their prices. AR at 3. No additional information was requested from the protester because by June 24 its submissions had established compliance with the RFQ technical requirements.