BNUMBER:  B-275736
DATE:  March 20, 1997
TITLE:  All Cape Corporation

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

Matter of:All Cape Corporation

File:     B-275736

Date:March 20, 1997

Paul S. Hughes, Esq., for the protester.
Jeanne Anderson, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that the agency deprived incumbent contractor of an 
opportunity to compete because the firm did not receive a mailed copy 
of the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the agency 
followed reasonable procedures for disseminating solicitation 
documents, there is no indication of any deficiencies in the 
contracting agency's solicitation process, and there is no evidence 
that the agency deliberately attempted to exclude the incumbent, who 
was included on the mailing list at the correct address. 

DECISION

All Cape Corporation protests any award under request for proposals 
(RFP) 
No. 525-9-97, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for 
delivery, storage, pick-up, disposal, and repairs of hospital beds.  
All Cape, the incumbent contractor, contends that the VA improperly 
failed to provide the firm a copy of the RFP, and that this failure 
precluded it from submitting an offer.  Accordingly, the protester 
asserts that the solicitation should be canceled and the requirement 
resolicited to give All Cape an opportunity to compete.  

We deny the protest.

The agency published a pre-solicitation notice in the October 11, 
1996, Commerce Business Daily, announcing that on approximately 
October 29 it planned to issue the RFP and that proposals would be due 
on approximately November 29.[1]  The RFP was issued on October 29, 
and the agency states that following its usual practice, copies were 
sent by regular mail to the 14 firms on the solicitation mailing list, 
including the protester.  Although All Cape's name was incorrectly 
listed on the solicitation mailing list as "All Care Corporation, 
Inc.," an error of only one letter; the correct address and the name 
under which the protester operates and does business, "Lakeville 
Health Care," did appear on the solicitation mailing list.  
Aeromed/American Medical Therapeutic, a firm that did not appear on 
the mailing list, submitted a proposal by the November 29 closing 
date.  

Thereafter, on December 3, the contracting officer contacted All Cape 
regarding its failure to submit a proposal and learned that the firm 
was unaware that an RFP had been issued.  On December 10, All Cape 
filed this protest with our Office.  

The protester contends that the agency denied it the opportunity to 
compete by failing to furnish it with a copy of the solicitation.  The 
protester notes that none of the firms listed on the agency's mailing 
list submitted a proposal and contends that this indicates that none 
of the firms on the mailing list received a copy of the RFP.  The 
protester also asserts that the fact that the agency extended its 
contract for 
3 months did not put it on notice that the agency was about to issue 
an RFP because the protester's previous contracts with the agency were 
extended by more than 3 months before a new RFP was issued.  

The VA takes the position that All Cape's apparent failure to receive 
the RFP was not the result of any attempt by the agency to exclude the 
protester from the competition.  The agency maintains that it made a 
good faith effort to comply with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements regarding notice and distribution of the 
solicitation.  In this regard, the VA points out that other firms on 
the mailing list received the RFP, as evidenced by the fact that the 
contracting officer received telephone inquiries regarding the 
procurement from other firms on the mailing list.  Finally, the VA 
notes that the one proposal it did receive was at a reasonable price.  

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, agencies are 
required to obtain full and open competition through the use of 
competitive procedures when procuring property or services.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253(a)(1)(A) (1994).  "Full and open competition" is obtained when 
"all responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or 
competitive proposals."  41 U.S.C.  sec.  259(c)(4), 403(6).  Accordingly, 
we carefully scrutinize allegations that a firm has not been provided 
an opportunity to compete for a particular contract and take into 
account all of the circumstances surrounding the firm's nonreceipt of 
the solicitation materials, as well as the agency's explanation.  
Sutton Designs, Inc.--Recon., B-235382.2, Aug. 11, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  
131.  We will conclude, however, that an agency has met its obligation 
if it has made a diligent, good faith effort to comply with the 
statutory and regulatory requirements regarding notice and 
distribution of solicitation materials and it  obtains competition and 
reasonable prices.  Air Masters Corp., B-262213, Sept. 12, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  110; Metropolitan Int'l Resources, Inc., B-258011; B-258012,
Nov. 17, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  196.  

Here, we find that the VA satisfied the statutory and regulatory 
requirements governing notice and distribution of solicitation 
materials, and the record provides no basis to attribute the 
protester's nonreceipt of the solicitation to any deficiencies in the 
agency's dissemination process or to a deliberate attempt to exclude 
the protester from the competition. 

All Cape does not dispute that the solicitation mailing list contains 
the firm's correct mailing address.  Although All Cape's name appears 
on the mailing list as "All Care," the firm's business operating name 
and address were listed correctly.  All Cape's apparent failure to 
receive the solicitation in itself does not evidence purposeful or 
deliberate action on the part of the agency to exclude the incumbent 
from competing.  As a general rule, the risk of nonreceipt of 
solicitation documents rests with the offeror, as the contracting 
agency is not a guarantor that these documents will be received in 
every instance.  Metropolitan Int'l Resources, Inc., supra.   

The fact that the agency did not receive proposals from firms on the 
mailing list does not establish that the agency failed to mail the 
solicitation to the listed firms. The contracting officer states that 
she received inquiries from a number of offerors on the mailing list 
after the mailing indicating that they had received the solicitation.  
The record does not suggest that the VA was responsible for All Cape's 
nonreceipt of the solicitation, and we fail to discern any pattern of 
negligence on the part of the agency.  Further, All Cape was on notice 
that the VA was about to issue a solicitation, because the firm was 
operating under a 3-month contract extension.  Notwithstanding its 
alleged prior experience in this respect, All Cape should have been 
aware that a new solicitation was likely to be issued within the 
timeframe of the expiration of its contract extension, and had an 
obligation to inquire in this regard.  By failing to do so, it clearly 
contributed to its inability to compete.  See Transtar Aerospace, 
Inc., B-239467, Aug. 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  134.  While only one offer 
was received, the agency determination that it was at a reasonable 
price is unobjectionable in view of the fact that the price was 
approximately 14 percent lower than All Cape's most recent price for 
the same services.   

The record demonstrates that the VA complied with the statutory and 
regulatory requirements regarding notice and distribution of 
solicitation materials 
and that it obtained a reasonable price.  Accordingly, there is no 
basis to sustain All Cape's protest.[2]

The protest is denied.  

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. By an agreement dated October 18, All Cape's contract for the 
services being solicited had been extended for 3 months from October 1 
through December 31.  

2. All Cape also contends that the agency cannot make award to AeroMed 
because that firm is not licensed to do business in Massachusetts.  
The solicitation imposes the general requirement that the contractor 
"obtain all necessary licenses and/or permits required to perform this 
work."  Where, as here, a solicitation contains only a general 
requirement that the contractor comply with applicable laws, the 
prospective contractor--not a federal official--is responsible for 
determining what the state or local requirements may be.  Mark Dunning 
Indus., Inc., B-258373, Dec. 7, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  226.  We therefore 
need not consider this issue further.  

All Cape also contends that AeroMed is not a small business.  The 
solicitation, however, was issued on an unrestricted basis, so that 
this contention provides no basis for objection.