BNUMBER:  B-272121
DATE:  August 30, 1996
TITLE:  Gas Monitoring, Inc.

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

Matter of:Gas Monitoring, Inc.

File:     B-272121

Date:August 30, 1996

Todd Hedgepeth for the protester.
Charlma O. Jones, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the 
agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency's sending of request for quotations (RFQ) to incorrect street 
address, and thereby preventing protester from receiving RFQ and 
submitting quotation, is not basis for upsetting award where agency 
had sent previous correspondence to same incorrect address, 
correspondence was received by protester, and protester never advised 
agency that it was using incorrect address.

DECISION

Gas Monitoring, Inc. (GMI) protests the award of a purchase order to 
Medical Gas Maintenance and Certification, Inc. under request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. 673-96-3-039-0337, issued by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) for the performance of services related to the 
medical piping system and alarm activation calibration at the VA 
Outpatient Clinic (VAOPC), Orlando, Florida.  GMI argues that the VA 
prevented it from submitting a quotation by sending a copy of the RFQ 
to an incorrect address. 

We deny the protest.

The facts here are straightforward:  the agency had the incorrect 
address for the protester in its vendor file and thus sent a copy of 
the RFQ to "210," rather than "201," Commonwealth Court, Cary, North 
Carolina, 27511; as a result, GMI did not receive the RFQ and was 
unable to submit a quotation.  Two quotations were received and award 
was made to Medical Gas Maintenance and Certification, Inc. at a price 
of $14,500.

GMI argues that, since project estimates it submitted to the agency 
prior to issuance of the RFQ contained the firm's correct address, the 
agency had no excuse for sending the RFQ to the wrong address; since 
this agency error precluded GMI from competing, GMI asserts that the 
competition should be reopened so it can submit a quotation.

Concurrent with the agency's obligation to obtain maximum practicable 
competition (generally, by soliciting at least three sources) under 
the simplified acquisition procedures applicable here, Federal 
Acquisition Regulation  sec.  13.106-1(a)(1),(3) (FAC 90-29), prospective 
offerors have a duty to avail themselves of every reasonable 
opportunity to obtain solicitation documents.  See Lewis Jamison Inc. 
& Assocs., B-252198, June 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  433.  Where a 
prospective contractor fails in this duty, we will not sustain a 
protest even where the agency also failed to meet its solicitation 
dissemination obligation.  Freedom Elevator Corp., B-256357, June 10, 
1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  361.  In considering such situations, we look to see 
whether the agency or the protester had the last clear opportunity to 
avoid unreasonably precluding the protester from competing.  Id.

It is clear that the agency made the initial transpositional error in 
GMI's street address when it entered GMI on its vendor list, and that 
this error ultimately resulted in GMI's not receiving the RFQ.  
However, as indicated above, this is not where our analysis ends.  The 
record also shows that the agency had corresponded with GMI using this 
same incorrect address on at least three prior occasions since January 
1996; specifically, the VA had awarded GMI three other purchase orders 
which it sent to the same incorrect address.  Although GMI apparently 
received these purchase orders--as evidenced by its completion of the 
ordered work--GMI never advised the agency that it was using the wrong 
address.  Thus, after the VA's initial error, GMI was in a position to 
correct the error, but did not do so.  Moreover, GMI's failure to 
advise the agency that it was using the wrong address actually gave 
the agency every reason to believe that the address it had been using 
was correct; thus, any inclination the agency might otherwise have had 
to check its address for GMI against the address on the estimates 
furnished by GMI was eliminated.  We realize that GMI also had no 
particular reason to check the correctness of the address on the 
agency's correspondence.  Again, however,  prospective offerors have 
the primary responsibility for assuring their own receipt of 
solicitation documents.  We therefore must conclude that GMI had the 
last clear opportunity to assure that it received the RFQ at its 
correct address, and that its nonreceipt of the RFQ does not provide a 
basis for sustaining the protest.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States