Prestige Lawncare, Inc. (W9127S-20-Q-0028)

B-418608 Jun 22, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Prestige Lawncare, Inc., a small business of Little Rock, Arkansas, protests the rejection of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. W9127S-20-Q-0028, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for park services. The protester argues that the agency should have accepted its quotation, despite its late submission, because the agency failed to respond to questions submitted by the protester in a timely manner. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Prestige Lawncare, Inc. File:  B-418608 Date:  June 22, 2020 Michael Dial for the protester. Allen Black, Esq., and David Zhai, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging agency unreasonably rejected protester’s untimely submission of its quotation is denied where rejection was reasonable and in accordance with terms of solicitation. DECISION   Prestige Lawncare, Inc., a small business of Little Rock, Arkansas, protests the rejection of its quotation under request for quotations (RFQ)No. W9127S-20-Q-0028, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps), for park services.  The protester argues that the agency should have accepted its quotation, despite its late submission, because the agency failed to respond to questions submitted by the protester in a timely manner. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 6, 2020, the Corps issued the RFQ in accordance with the format of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, RFQ at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The agency sought a vendor to provide park services, such as park attendant duties, cleaning, mowing and trimming, in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.  Id.  The solicitation, which was set aside for small businesses, anticipated that source selection would be based solely on price.  Id.  The due date for quotations was March 23 at 12:00 pm Central Standard Time (CST).[1]  RFQ at 3. The solicitation incorporated by reference FAR provision 52.212-1 (Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items), which expressly limits the agency’s consideration of late submissions.  Specifically, FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i) states that any offer received after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless (1) it is received before award is made, (2) the contracting officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition, and (3) one of three exceptions applies.[2] On Thursday, March 19 at 6:00 p.m., Prestige emailed the contracting officer a series of questions regarding the solicitation.  COS at 2.  According to the agency, the contracting officer had left work for the day and did not return to her duty station until Monday, March 23.  Id.  The contracting officer returned to work on Monday and emailed Prestige at 11:05 a.m.  AR, Tab 3, Questions and Response at 1.  In her email, the contracting officer stated that she was unable to answer Prestige’s questions, but that she would forward them to the project manager.  Id.  In this same email, the contracting officer reminded Prestige that “[a]ll quotes are due today by 12 pm CST.”  Id.  Prestige submitted its quotation at 12:29 p.m. on March 23, approximately 30 minutes after the due date for quotations.  Protest at 1.  At 12:40 p.m., Prestige contacted the agency, and asked the contracting officer to accept its quotation despite its late submission.  Protest at 1; COS at 2.  The contracting officer stated that she was unable to accept late quotations.  COS at 1.  Prestige then filed this protest on March 24.  DISCUSSION The protester contends that the agency should have accepted its late submission because the agency failed to provide a timely response to the protester’s questions.[3] While our Office has found that language in an RFQ requesting quotations by a certain date, without more, does not establish a firm closing date for receipt of quotations.  M.Braun, Inc., B-298935.2, May 21, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 96 at 3-4, when the RFQ states that quotations must be received by a stated deadline to be considered, quotations cannot be considered if received after the deadline.  See Turner Consulting Group, Inc., B-400421, Oct. 29, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 198 at 3-4 (finding agency’s rejection of protester’s late quotation proper where RFQ provided that quotations received after exact time specified for receipt of quotations would not be considered); cf. Data Integrators, Inc., B-310928, Jan. 31, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 27 at 2 (sustaining protest where agency awarded to late quotation despite solicitation provision that any quotation “received . . .