G.E.G. Sugar Blues & Noe's Colors, B-284117, February 22, 2000

B-284117 Feb 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The contracting agency should have considered the protester's low quotation received prior to award since no substantial activity had transpired toward award and other offerors would not have been prejudiced. Which was lower in price than Clemson's. Because it was unable to confirm that the quotation had been received prior to the date specified in the RFQ. Sugar Blues contends that its quotation was submitted prior to the specified date and thus should have been considered. Which was issued on September 2. 480 short-sleeved women's shirts. /1/ Quotations were due by close of business on September 24. Seven quotations were received. 056 was lowest of the seven. 848 was second low. He determined that the quotation was late and should not be considered. View Decision Matter of: G.E.G. Sugar Blues & Noe's Colors File: B-284117 Date: February 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION G.E.G. Sugar Blues & Noe's Colors (Sugar Blues) protests the issuance of a purchase order for women's shirts to Clemson University Clemson Apparel Research under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO100-99-Q-4249, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP). The agency refused to consider Sugar Blues' quotation, which was lower in price than Clemson's, because it was unable to confirm that the quotation had been received prior to the date specified in the RFQ. Sugar Blues contends that its quotation was submitted prior to the specified date and thus should have been considered. We sustain the protest. The RFQ, which was issued on September 2, 1999, requested quotations for 4,480 short-sleeved women's shirts. /1/ Quotations were due by close of business on September 24. Seven quotations were received. Sugar Blues' price of $49,056 was lowest of the seven; Clemson's price of $50,848 was second low. The contract specialist responsible for the procurement could not confirm that Sugar Blues' quotation had been received prior to close of business on September 24; as a consequence, he determined that the quotation was late and should not be considered. In this regard, the agency reports that the contract specialist, who had scheduled leave, left the agency at approximately noon on Friday, September 24, without making arrangements to have the two facsimile machines designated for receipt of quotations checked during the remainder of the afternoon. When the contract specialist returned to work on Monday, September 27, he found a faxed quotation from Sugar Blues. Since the fax machine on which the quotation was received had not been set to print the time and date of receipt on incoming documents, and the machine had not been checked between noon on Friday and Monday morning, the contract specialist was unable to determine when the fax had arrived. /2/ The contract specialist did note, however, that the following legend, generated by the sending fax machine, had been printed across the top of the quotation: "09/25/99 01:55 FAX." Based on this information, the contracting specialist determined that Sugar Blues' quotation had been received after the specified due date and should not be considered for award. On November 5, the agency issued a purchase order to Clemson. The protester contends that its quotation should have been considered because it was in fact transmitted on September 24. /3/ As explained below, we conclude that the quotation should have been considered regardless of whether it was transmitted on September 24 or 25; accordingly, we sustain Sugar Blues' protest. The RFQ here provided that "[o]ffers are requested by COB Friday, September 24, 1999." Language requesting quotations by a certain date cannot be construed as establishing a firm closing date for the receipt of quotations absent a provision expressly providing that quotations must be received by that date to be considered. John Blood, B-274624, Dec. 19, 1996, 96-2 CPD Para. 233 at 2; Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., B-222122, June 30, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 16 at 3. Here, the language in the RFQ requesting quotations by September 24 does not meet that standard. The agency therefore should have considered any quotations received prior to source selection if no substantial activity had transpired in evaluating quotations and other vendors would not be prejudiced. Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., supra. Failure to do so would be inconsistent with the statutory provision authorizing simplified procedures for small purchases, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(g)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1998), which requires that agencies obtain competition to the maximum extent practicable. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2304(g)(3) (1994); Instruments & Controls Serv. Co., supra.