BNUMBER:  B-270840
DATE:  May 1, 1996
TITLE:  Diverstech Co.

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

Matter of:Diverstech Co.

File:     B-270840

Date:May 1, 1996

Barry Sugarman for the protester.
Maria Ventresca, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

1.  Where solicitation instructed offerors to submit a product 
demonstration model (PDM), which would represent a significant portion 
of the technical evaluation, and warned that agency would not evaluate 
a proposal that did not include a PDM, record supports the agency's 
determination that allowing protester to submit a PDM after the date 
set for receipt of initial proposals would be tantamount to the 
acceptance of a late proposal.

2.  Protester's contention that agency should have accepted its 
proposal despite fact that it did not include a production 
demonstration model (PDM) as required by solicitation--on ground that 
agency allegedly had within its possession a PDM of model offered by 
protester, submitted by a different company in connection with a 
different procurement 2 years before--is without merit where 
solicitation clearly specified that proposals were to include PDMs and 
protester did not timely raise objection to that requirement.

DECISION

Diverstech Co. protests the rejection of its proposal submitted under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO200-96-R-8006, issued by the 
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Personnel Support Center (DPSC), for 
surgical tourniquets.  Diverstech contends that it should not have 
been required to submit a product demonstration model (PDM) with its 
proposal as required by the solicitation because the agency already 
had a model of the product being offered by the protester from a 
solicitation issued 2 years previously.

We deny the protest.

On October 10, 1995, the agency issued the RFP for award of a firm, 
fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the 
best value to the government, considering price and technical factors.  
Technical factors included, in descending order of importance, product 
assessment, the PDM, the offeror's quality assurance program, and 
corporate/past experience.

Instructions for the preparation of proposals advised offerors of the 
need and manner for submitting a PDM for evaluation and specifically 
advised offerors that failure to submit the PDM would result in 
removal of a proposal from further consideration.  The solicitation 
further advised offerors that the agency intended to examine the PDM 
to verify that it met specifications and to assess the merits of 
overall product quality, workmanship, and aesthetics.  There was no 
provision for waiving the PDM requirement based on prior submissions, 
earlier product evaluations, or prior purchases of or experience with 
the model being offered.  The solicitation also incorporated the 
provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation   sec.  52.215-10, concerning 
the late submission of proposals.

Diverstech submitted a proposal on November 8, offering the Instrumed 
90-700.  The protester did not provide a PDM but attached a cover 
letter to the proposal, stating its belief that the agency already had 
a PDM for evaluation, as well as actual experience with the Instrumed 
product.  By letter dated December 11, the agency advised the 
protester that it would no longer consider Diverstech's proposal 
because of the failure to submit a PDM in accordance with the 
solicitation.  This protest followed.

Diverstech contends that the failure to submit a PDM with its proposal 
should be waived as a minor informality or irregularity.  In addition, 
the protester argues that since it submitted its proposal before the 
initial due date, the agency should have called Diverstech to request 
submission of a PDM.  Diverstech also argues that the agency should 
have waived the requirement that Diverstech submit a PDM with its 
proposal since the agency had a sample of the Instrumed 90-7000 from a 
prior solicitation.

Where a proposal omits material necessary for the evaluation, 
rejection is proper where the initial offer is so deficient that, in 
essence, no meaningful proposal was submitted, and to allow the 
omission to be cured after the time set for receipt of initial 
proposals would be inconsistent with the clause governing late 
proposals.  Panasonic Communications & Sys. Co., B-239917, Oct. 10, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  279.  Here, evaluation of the PDM represented a 
significant portion of the technical evaluation, and the solicitation 
expressly warned offerors that the agency would not consider a 
proposal that did not include a PDM.  Accordingly, rather than a minor 
informality or irregularity, as Diverstech asserts, the failure to 
submit a PDM with its proposal was a material omission, and acceptance 
of a PDM from Diverstech at this point would be tantamount to allowing 
the submission of a late proposal.  See RMS Indus., B-245539, Dec. 9, 
1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  528 (and cases cited therein).  Further, the agency 
was under no obligation to review the proposal prior to the due date 
and advise Diverstech of its failure to comply with the explicit 
instructions for preparing proposals, since it is the responsibility 
of the offeror to submit an adequately written and complete technical 
proposal.[1]  Cubic Field Servs., Inc., B-252526, June 2, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  419. 
 
Diverstech also argues that the agency already was in possession of a 
PDM of the model it was offering under the RFP, and thus that it was 
improper for the agency to reject its proposal for failing to include 
a PDM.  Specifically, Diverstech asserts that in 1993 Instrumed 
provided the agency a PDM of the model Diverstech was offering under 
the current RFP; according to Diverstech, the PDM was furnished in 
support of a proposal submitted by USTC (a company for which 
Diverstech's president previously worked).  The agency contends that 
it does not have the PDM to which Diverstech refers.[2]

We need not resolve the factual dispute between the parties since 
whether the agency was in possession of the PDM to which Diverstech 
refers is irrelevant to deciding the issue in this protest.  By 
arguing that the agency should not have rejected its proposal for lack 
of a PDM because the agency was in possession of a PDM submitted by a 
different company in a prior competition, Diverstech in essence is 
arguing that the agency should have waived the requirement that 
Diverstech's proposal include a PDM.  As noted above,  the requirement 
that a PDM be submitted with the proposal was stated in the RFP, and 
there was no provision in the RFP for waiver of that requirement.  
Accordingly, the RFP clearly conveyed the agency's decision that it 
was necessary to have the PDM submitted with the proposal, and there 
was no basis for any offeror, including Diverstech, to assume that a 
PDM submitted previously would be considered in the evaluation here.   
If Diverstech believed that the RFP should have provided for waiver of 
the requirement under the circumstances here, it should have raised 
the issue prior to submitting its proposal, rather than waiting until 
the agency rejected its proposal a month later.  See section 
21.2(a)(1), 60 Fed. Reg. 40,737, 40,740 (Aug. 10, 1995) (to be 
codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(1)) (protests based upon alleged 
improprieties in a solicitation must be filed prior to time set for 
receipt of initial proposals).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In the course of the protest, it developed that the agency had 
issued an amendment, which Diverstech did not receive, extending the 
due date for submission of proposals.  In the absence of any argument 
or evidence that a longer period for submission of proposals would 
have allowed it to submit the PDM omitted from its actual proposal, 
there is no basis to conclude that Diverstech was competitively 
prejudiced by its failure to receive the amendment. In any event, 
there is no allegation or evidence that the agency deliberately 
attempted to exclude Diverstech from the competition, or otherwise 
violated applicable regulations governing the distribution of 
amendments.  See Hospitality Inn--Downtown, B-248750.3, Oct. 28, 1992, 
92-2 CPD  para.  291.  In fact, the agency points out that Diverstech itself 
never requested a copy of the solicitation and instead received a copy 
sent to another firm, United States Trading Corporation (USTC).  

2. Specifically, the agency contends that it returned the PDM to USTC; 
in response, Diverstech furnished a sworn statement from USTC's 
foreman denying any knowledge of the agency's having returned the PDM.