BNUMBER:  B-265956
DATE:  September 14, 1995
TITLE:  University of Minnesota

**********************************************************************

Matter of:     University of Minnesota

File:          B-265956

Date:          September 14, 1995
                                                             A. R. 
Potami for the protester.
Adam Vodraska, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated 
in the preparation of the decision.
                                                              DIGEST

Where an agency issues a written amendment with an extended due date 
allowing the protester to resubmit its proposal, the agency is not 
required to orally notify the protester of the amendment or to remind 
the protester to resubmit its proposal.
                                                              DECISION

The University of Minnesota, Office of Research and Technology 
Transfer, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competition 
under request for proposals (RFP) No. 640-35-95, issued by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto Medical Center, for a drug 
trial laboratory.

We dismiss the protest.

After receiving the RFP, a University official, on July 3, 1995, 
proposed modifications to the contracting officer.  The contracting 
officer responded by amending the RFP (Amendment 1) and setting a 
revised proposal due date of July 13.  The contracting officer then 
transmitted a copy of Amendment 1 to the University official by 
facsimile.  After receiving Amendment 1, the University official 
further discussed certain concerns about the RFP with the contracting 
officer.  Nonetheless, the agency received the University's proposal 
on July 10.

On August 23, the protester learned that its proposal had not been 
evaluated and discovered that the agency had earlier returned its 
proposal, apparently by mail, pursuant to the issuance of another 
amendment (Amendment 2), which among other things, extended the 
proposal due date for more than a month.  The protester states that it 
did not discover this fact until after the revised proposal date and 
upon reviewing its files found that the package from the agency had 
been "mishandled" in the protester's office.  The protester states 
that it had "evidence of receiving a package" from the agency, but was 
unable to locate its contents.  The protester complains that the 
agency did not otherwise notify the University of Amendment 2 or that 
its proposal needed to be resubmitted, despite the previous telephone 
and facsimile communications with the agency regarding Amendment 1.

It is the contracting agency's affirmative obligation to use 
reasonable methods, as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR), for the dissemination of solicitation documents, including 
amendments to prospective competitors.  FAR  14.208; 15.410; 15.606.  
Western Roofing Serv., 70 Comp. Gen. 323 (1991), 91-1 CPD  242.

Here, since the protester concedes that it actually received Amendment 
2, it had the responsibility for assuring timely resubmission of its 
proposal by the extended due date.  See Selrico Servs., Inc., 
B-259709.2, May 1, 1995, 95-1 CPD
 224.  The protester's failure to notice that its proposal had been 
returned was, as it admits, the result of its own mishandling.  The 
protester does not allege that Amendment 2 was sent or received too 
late to enable it to resubmit its proposal, or that Amendment 2 was 
otherwise mishandled by the agency, or that the agency deliberately 
attempted to exclude the protester from the competition.  See Data 
Express, B-234468, May 25, 1989, 89-1 CPD  507.  Moreover, given that 
Amendment 2 evidently required that the protester's proposal be 
resubmitted, we cannot find that the return of the proposal to the 
protester was inappropriate.  Nor can we find any law or regulation 
that required the agency to provide oral notification of Amendment 2 
to the University, or to remind the University to resubmit its 
proposal.[1]  See FAR  15.410; 15.606; Western Roofing Serv., supra.

The protest is dismissed.

     James A. Spangenberg
     Assistant General Counsel

1. In view of the University's obvious interest, it would have been 
prudent for the agency to have telephonically advised the University 
that its proposal had been returned and a revised proposal 
resubmitted.  See Western Roofing Serv., supra.