Land Logistics (70FB8020Q00000001)

B-419247 Dec 31, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ray Land, Inc., d/b/a Land Logistics, a small business of Branford, Florida, protests the agency's rejection of its quotations as late, under two requests for quotations (RFQ) (No. 70FB8020Q00000001 and No. 70FB8020Q00000002), issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for transportable temporary housing unit (TTHU) general living kits (RFQ -0001) and bedroom kits (RFQ -0002). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably concluded its quotations were late. We deny the protests. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Land Logistics File:  B-419247 Date:  December 31, 2020 Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., and Quinten R. Fisher, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Matthew Lane, Esq., and Megan Chester, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, 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 Protests challenging agency’s rejection of quotations as late are denied where rejection was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitations. DECISION Ray Land, Inc., d/b/a Land Logistics, a small business of Branford, Florida, protests the agency’s rejection of its quotations as late, under two requests for quotations (RFQ) (No. 70FB8020Q00000001 and No. 70FB8020Q00000002), issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for transportable temporary housing unit (TTHU) general living kits (RFQ -0001) and bedroom kits (RFQ -0002). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably concluded its quotations were late. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND On December 5, 2019, FEMA issued the RFQs as small business set-asides and in accordance with the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13.5.  Agency Report (AR), Tab D, RFQ -0001 at 2; RFQ -0002 at 2; Tab A, Contracting Officer’s Statement of Fact (COSF) at 1.  The RFQs contemplated the establishment of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) to acquire TTHU general living kits and bedroom kits for eligible disaster survivors on an as-needed basis.  RFQ- 0001 at 36; RFQ -0002 at 36.  General living kits, as described by the agency, include items such as plates, bowls, utensils, cups, waste baskets, trash bags, paper towels, toilet paper, and sponges.  COSF at 1.  Bedroom kits, as described by the agency, include items such as sheets, pillowcases, pillows, towels, and blankets.  Id.  Both RFQs provided that the deadline for quotations was January 5, 2020 at 11:59 p.m.  RFQ -0001 at 9; RFQ -0002 at 9. According to the agency, both of the protester’s quotations were received at 12:02 a.m. on January 6, three minutes after the time set for receipt of quotations.  FEMA also received six timely quotations from other vendors in response to RFQ -0001 and three timely quotations from other vendors in response to RFQ -0002.  COSF at 2.  On September 22, FEMA notified Land Logistics that the agency had not evaluated either quotation because it was received late.[1]  AR, Tab J, Notification of Untimely Quotation.  On September 22 and 23, the contracting officer established BPAs with three vendors under RFQ -0001 and two vendors under RFQ -0002.  COSF at 2.  Land Logistics filed this protest with our Office on October 2. DISCUSSION Land Logistics contends that its quotations were timely because it submitted its quotations by 11:59 p.m. on January 5 and FEMA acknowledged receipt of the quotations without raising any issue regarding timeliness.  Land Logistics also argues that even if the quotations it submitted for these RFQs were late, FEMA should have considered Land Logistics’s substantively identical quotations from previous solicitations.  For reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[2] It is a vendor's responsibility, when transmitting its quotation electronically, to ensure the delivery of its quotation to the proper place at the proper time.  Team Housing Solutions, B-414105, Feb. 10, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 55 at 4.  Moreover, 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 provides 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.