BNUMBER:  B-274303
DATE:  November 29, 1996
TITLE:  Huntington Valley Industries

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

Matter of:Huntington Valley Industries

File:     B-274303

Date:November 29, 1996

Nancy Fisher for the protester.
Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Vendor bears responsibility for timely conveying its quote, including 
all information required by request for quotations to determine the 
technical acceptability of the proposed item, to the designated 
government office.  Where protester allegedly transmitted required 
information by facsimile, but agency denies timely receipt and there 
is no proof of receipt, agency reasonably considered quotation 
incomplete and properly rejected it as technically unacceptable.

DECISION

Huntington Valley Industries (HVI) protests the rejection of its 
quotation under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO500-96-Q-LG30, 
issued by the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) for internal 
wrenching bolts.

We deny the protest.

The procurement was conducted under simplified acquisition procedures 
authorized by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, 10 
U.S.C.  sec.  2304(g) (1994), as implemented in part 13 of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).  The RFQ was issued by DISC under 
"automated" procedures using the DISC electronic bulletin board to 
solicit and receive quotations.  Firms desiring access to the 
electronic bulletin board to review the RFQs and submit quotations are 
required to enter into small purchase agreements with DISC.  The 
agreements set forth terms, conditions, provisions, and clauses which 
are applicable to RFQs and purchase orders issued by DISC for small 
purchases, including those solicited and awarded electronically.[1]  
DISC and Huntington have entered into such an agreement.  

The RFQ, posted on the DISC electronic bulletin board on June 19, 
1996, stated that the agency required 3,300 bolts and that the bolts 
were considered a "critical application item," and requested 
quotations by July 11.  The RFQ and the DISC small purchase agreement 
specifically required quotations to include certain technical 
information.  The RFQ's product item description listed the acceptable 
source by name and the product by part number, and the RFQ stated that 
source inspection/approval would be required of offerors other than 
the acceptable source.  The RFQ's "Products Offered Clause" required 
that offerors furnish with their quotes evidence that the product 
being offered is the product specified in the RFQ's product item 
description, and listed the specific type of evidence required to 
establish the identity of the product and the manufacturing source.
  
Of the seven responses DISC received, HVI submitted the lowest-priced 
quotation.  The contracting officer rejected HVI's quotation as 
technically unacceptable because HVI failed to provide the required 
information concerning the bolts HVI intended to supply.  The 
contracting officer rejected the second lowest-priced quotation, and 
on August 14, issued a purchase order to ASC Industries, which had 
submitted the third lowest-priced quotation.

The protester does not challenge DISC's determination that the 
required information was necessary to establish the acceptability of 
its quotation.[2]  Rather, HVI claims that it transmitted the required 
information by facsimile using "DISC standard form 2500."  HVI 
speculates that its facsimile was not forwarded to the contracting 
officer.  HVI argues that since it transmitted the required 
information, DISC should have found its quote acceptable and issued 
the purchase order to HVI at its lower price.

Vendors are responsible for having their offers/quotes reach the 
designated government office on time.   Carter Mach. Co., Inc., 
B-245008, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  143.  Vendors relying on facsimile 
transmissions to file documents assume the risk of nonreceipt.  See, 
e.g., Comspace Corp., B-243166.2, June 27, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  610; 
Adrian Supply Co.--Recon.; Western States Elec., Inc., B-227022.3; 
B-227022.4, Feb. 23, 1988, 88-1 CPD  para.  184.  Here, DISC contracting 
officials deny having received the required information from HVI prior 
to issuing the purchase order to ASC.[3]  The record contains no other 
conclusive, contemporaneous evidence to support HVI's claim that it 
transmitted the required information, or that DISC contracting 
officials received HVI's facsimile transmission.  In the absence of 
any evidence documenting receipt by DISC of the information necessary 
to determine the acceptability of HVI's proposed bolts, we conclude 
that the agency reasonably proceeded on the basis that HVI's quote was 
incomplete as submitted, and properly rejected the quote as 
technically unacceptable.  See, e.g., Southern CAD/CAM, 71 Comp. Gen. 
78 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  453.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For further discussion of how DISC conducts simplified acquisition 
procedures using its electronic bulletin board, see Arcy Mfg. Co., 
Inc. et al., B-261538 et al., Aug. 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  283.

2. We recently denied another protest by HVI that DISC improperly 
rejected its quotation for close tolerance screws as technically 
unacceptable where, as in this case, HVI's quotation lacked "the most 
rudimentary" technical information required by the RFQ.  Huntington 
Valley Indus., B-272321, Sept. 27, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  126.   

3. The contracting officer states that the first time she saw a copy 
of the DISC form 2500 HVI  allegedly faxed with its quote was on 
August 19, after HVI filed this protest.  There is no evidence in the 
record to contradict the contracting officer's statement.