USA Information Systems, Inc., B-291488, December 2, 2002

B-291488 Dec 02, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where the solicitation materials were available only on the Internet. Protest that it was improper for the agency to post an amendment with a short response time without specifically advising the protester is denied where the record shows that the protester failed to avail itself of every reasonable opportunity to obtain the amendment by either registering for e-mail notification or checking the Internet site. That this failure was the reason the protester allegedly had insufficient time to protest the solicitation's terms. The notice stated that no quotations would be accepted for the requirement because it was being procured on a sole-source basis. (IHS) was the only supplier of this service. View Decision USA Information Systems, Inc., B-291488, December 2, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION USA Information Systems, Inc. (USAInfo) protests the manner in which the Department of the Air Force amended the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. F16602-02-Q-S9A3, issued to acquire a 1-year Internet-based network subscription service for various military and engineering specifications, instructions, and regulations. USAInfo argues that by posting the amendment online with a short response time, without specifically advising the firm, the agency prevented it from timely protesting the amended solicitation's terms. We deny the protest. On September 14, 2002, Barksdale Air Force Base posted a presolicitation notice of this solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) Internet site at www.eps.gov. The notice stated that no quotations would be accepted for the requirement because it was being procured on a sole-source basis; the sole-source justification indicated that Information Handling Services, Inc. (IHS) was the only supplier of this service. Sole Source Justification at 1. On September 19, a representative from USAInfo contacted the agency and obtained a copy of the solicitation. The next day, USAInfo's counsel sent an e-mail to the contracting officer objecting to the sole-source procurement and arguing that the RFQ's line items were improperly bundled. USAInfo asked the contracting officer to amend the RFQ to delete all references to IHS's products, unique features and part numbers, and to unbundle the line items. On September 24, the agency posted RFQ amendment no. 01 to the FedBizOpps Internet site. Among other things, the amendment revised the RFQ to reflect that the procurement was now a full and open competition, changed all line items to read IHS items "or equal," and extended the due date for quotations to Thursday, September 26. On Wednesday, September 25, USAInfo's counsel discussed additional concerns with counsel for the agency, who agreed to extend the due date for quotations and further amend the solicitation. While the parties disagree as to whether agency counsel told USAInfo when the amendment would be issued, USAInfo's counsel states he was told that the agency wanted to make the award by the end of the fiscal year. USAInfo Counsel Affidavit Para. 4. The end of the fiscal year was Monday, September 30. On Friday, September 27, the agency posted RFQ amendment no. 02 to the FedBizOpps Internet site. The amendment, which deleted references to IHS and its part numbers, established a closing date of noon on Monday, September 30. IHS was the only firm to submit a quotation, and the Air Force awarded the firm a purchase order in the amount of $37,447.12, effective October 1. USAInfo filed the instant protest 1 week later. USAInfo states it did not become aware of the existence of the amendment or the new due date for quotations until after the deadline, and argues that the manner in which the agency amended the solicitation--by posting it online on Friday, September 27 and providing for a noon, Monday, September 30 deadline--while not so notifying USAInfo was unreasonable. The protester states that it believes the amended solicitation still "likely does not allow [it] to submit a compliant response," Protest at 2, but that the agency's actions prevented it from filing a timely protest of the solicitation's terms. /1/ We agree with the Air Force that it was USAInfo's failure to make every reasonable effort to promptly obtain the amendment that led to its inability to timely file a protest or submit a quotation. Prospective offerors have an affirmative duty to make every reasonable effort to obtain solicitation materials. Performance Constr., Inc., B-286192, Oct. 30, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 180 at 2; American Handling, Inc., B-281261, Jan. 19, 1999, 99-1 CPD Para. 13 at 2.