BNUMBER:  B-274037
DATE:  November 14, 1996
TITLE:  Comspace Corporation

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

Matter of:Comspace Corporation

File:     B-274037

Date:November 14, 1996

Irving Becker for the protester.
Jerry Aldridge, and Christine B. Rothe, Department of the Air Force, 
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

Electronic quotation cannot be considered for award where the only 
evidence of receipt is agency record showing receipt by the agency 
after award.

DECISION

Comspace Corporation protests the rejection of its quotation as late, 
and the award of a purchase order to Star Dynamic Corporation, under 
request for quotations (RFQ) No. F41612-96-T-A998, issued by the 
Department of the Air Force for 32 field telephone sets.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued by Sheppard Air Force Base (AFB) on July 11, 1996, 
using simplified acquisition procedures (initiated by the agency for 
purchases up to $100,000), under which RFQs are transmitted directly 
to an electronic bulletin board maintained by the agency.  Quotations, 
due no later than July 23, were to be submitted by interested firms 
either in paper form or electronically through a government certified 
value added network (VAN), which would transmit the quotation to the 
agency network entry point (NEP) in Columbus, Ohio.  The NEP is the 
first electronic entry point at which the government accepts a 
vendor's quotation.

On July 18, Comspace submitted its quotation to Comtech Management 
Systems (CMS), a trading partner (i.e., a firm that serves as a 
"middleman" for purposes of submitting electronic quotations to a VAN, 
see Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  4.501).  CMS transmitted 
the quotation to Harbinger Corporation, a VAN.  However, as of July 
23, the agency had no record of a quotation from Comspace; it   made 
award on that same date to Star Dynamic, which submitted the lower of 
the two quotations received.  Subsequently, after being informed that 
Comspace had submitted a quotation, the contracting officer 
investigated and found that a quotation from Comspace (lower than Star 
Dynamic's) was received[1], but not until 3:45 p.m. on August 1.  The 
agency concluded that the late quotation did not warrant disturbing 
the award.

Comspace argues that its quotation should be deemed timely based on 
the fact that it was timely submitted on July 18 to a government 
certified VAN through its trading partner; any delay in its receipt at 
the Columbus NEP was not Comspace's fault but, rather, was a 
"government matter" that should not affect its entitlement to the 
award based on its low price. 

When, as here, the RFQ does not contain a late quotations clause, but 
merely requests quotations by a certain date, that date is not 
considered a firm date for purposes of determining whether a quotation 
may form the basis for an award.      A & B Trash Serv., B-250322, 
Jan. 22, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  53.  Rather, the agency is not precluded 
from considering a quotation received after the announced due date 
provided that no substantial activity has transpired in evaluating 
quotations, and the other firms submitting quotations would not be 
prejudiced.  Id.  Activity is deemed substantial where the agency has 
begun the award process prior to receiving the late quotation.  Adrian 
Supply Co., 68 Comp. Gen. 575 (1989), 89-2 CPD  para.  99.

Here, the only evidence in the record bearing on the time of receipt 
by the agency shows that Comspace's quotation was received on August 
1.  Comspace has submitted other evidence, but it does not show 
receipt by the agency before the due date, which was also the award 
date.  For example, CMS' documents show that it transmitted Comspace's 
quotation to Harbinger (the VAN) on July 18, but they do not show when 
the quotation was transmitted by Harbinger to, or received by, the 
agency.  Likewise, information from Harbinger indicates only that it 
received the transmission from CMS at 4:03 p.m. on July 18; it does 
not show the time Harbinger submitted the quotation to the agency or 
the time it was received by the agency.  In fact, Harbinger 
specifically states in a letter to Comspace that it is unable to 
verify the time the quotation was actually sent to or received by the 
agency because "its system logs for this date/time were out of 
retention"; in fact, the letter further states that Harbinger is 
unable to offer "proof that the document was sent to the Columbus 
NEP."  We conclude that Comspace's quotation was received after award 
and that, under the above standard, the agency properly declined to 
consider it.

There is no basis to find Comspace's quotation timely--and thus in 
line for award--based on the time it was received by the VAN, as 
Comspace essentially argues.  While VANs participate in the electronic 
quotation (and offer) submission process, they are not government 
entities; receipt of a quotation by a VAN therefore is not receipt by 
the government.  See generally G&G Patrol, B-233170, Oct. 27, 1988, 
88-2 CPD  para.  401 (U.S. Postal Service is not government entity for 
purposes of determining time of receipt by government within meaning 
of late bid clause).  Since, as a practical matter, an agency cannot 
consider a quotation before receiving it, a quotation transmitted by a 
VAN after award plainly cannot be considered for award.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although the records show the time of receipt at Sheppard AFB, not 
at the Columbus NEP point of receipt for electronic quotations, the 
agency explains that there is only a minor delay (a few seconds to a 
few minutes) in the transmission of the information across the network 
to Sheppard AFB.