Ghazanfar Neft Gas LTD

B-414636 Jul 21, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ghazanfar Neft Gas LTD, of Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, protests the decision of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) not to consider its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-17-R-0208, issued by DLA for diesel and unleaded automotive gasoline. Ghazanfar contends that it timely submitted its proposal and that the agency failed to respond to its request for clarification about the status of its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Ghazanfar Neft Gas LTD File:  B-414636 Date:  July 21, 2017 S. Ahmad Shaheer Razavie, for the protester. Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to consider a firm's e-mailed proposal is denied, where the protester cannot demonstrate that the agency received the e-mail containing the proposal. DECISION Ghazanfar Neft Gas LTD, of Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, protests the decision of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) not to consider its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE600-17-R-0208, issued by DLA for diesel and unleaded automotive gasoline.  Ghazanfar contends that it timely submitted its proposal and that the agency failed to respond to its request for clarification about the status of its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 23, 2017, provided for the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for the supply and delivery of diesel products and unleaded automotive gasoline to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at 1, 11, 43.  The RFP contemplated a 3-year period of performance.  Id. at 11.  Award was to be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.  Id. at 83. The RFP contained instructions for the submission of proposals and included Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items, which stated that "[o]fferors are responsible for submitting offers . . . so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation."  Id. at 78.  Additionally, the RFP encouraged offerors to verify receipt of e-mail offers by contacting the contracting officer prior to the solicitation closing time.  Id. at 82.  The solicitation was amended to instruct offerors submitting proposals via e-mail to send the proposals to the contracting officer and contract specialist and included their respective e-mail addresses.  AR, Tab 4, RFP amend. 1, at 2.  The amendment also included the agency's answers to questions posed by potential offerors.  In response to one question, the agency stated that "under FAR 52.212-1, it is the Offeror[']s responsibility to confirm that an offer has been received by the [] U.S. Government."  Id., attach. 1, Questions and Answers, Answer to Question 12.  The RFP was amended again to extend the deadline for receipt of proposals to April 3, 2017.  AR, Tab 3, RFP amend. 2, at 2. DLA timely received 31 proposals at the contracting officer's and contract specialist's e-mail addresses.  AR, Tab 5, Contracting Officer's Decl., at 1.  On April 8, after the closing time for receipt of proposals, Ghazanfar e-mailed both the contracting officer and the contract specialist, and stated in relevant part as follows: We submitted a proposal for procurement of fuel to US Embassy sites in Afghanistan on 13 March 2017 but since then, we have not received any reply and feedback about the process or progress on our submitted proposal. We would highly appreciate to have a briefing about the status of our proposal. AR, Tab 8, Ghazanfar E-mail, Apr. 8, 2017.  The e-mail included Ghazanfar's March 13 email by which it attempted to submit its proposal.  Id. The contract specialist responded to Ghazanfar's e-mail, asking if a confirmation receipt had been received and notifying Ghazanfar that its proposal had not been received.  AR, Tab 9, Contract Specialist E-mail, Apr. 10, 2017.  Ghazanfar asserts that it replied to the contract specialist's e-mail and, as part of that e-mail, forwarded its proposal and requested a reply.  Protest at 1 and attach., Ghazanfar E-mail, Apr.