BNUMBER:  B-276954 
DATE:  June 30, 1997
TITLE: O.J. Best Services, Inc., B-276954, June 30, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:O.J. Best Services, Inc.

File:     B-276954

Date:June 30, 1997

John Heo, Esq., O.J. Best Services, Inc., for the protester.
Mark H. Alexander, Esq., Defense Commissary Agency, for the agency.
Katherine Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest based upon alleged failure of offeror to receive solicitation 
amendments extending the original closing date for receipt of 
proposals is dismissed where there is no allegation that contracting 
agency failed in its obligation to use a reasonable method to 
disseminate solicitation documents to prospective offerors.  

DECISION

O.J. Best Services, Inc. protests any award under request for 
proposals (RFP) 
No. DECA01-97-R-0047, issued by the Defense Commissary Agency (DCA) to 
provide shelf stocking and custodial services for the Fort Stewart 
Commissary at Fort Stewart, Georgia.  The protester asserts that the 
agency improperly failed to provide the firm with two amendments to 
the solicitation which extended the closing date for receipt of 
proposals.  

We dismiss the protest because it fails to state a valid basis for 
protest.  See 
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5 (1997).  

The RFP, issued on March 6, 1997, established April 14 as the closing 
date for receipt of proposals.  On April 9, the agency issued 
amendment No. 1 which, among other things, extended the closing date 
to April 25.  On April 18, the agency issued amendment No. 2 modifying 
the square footage of the custodial work to be performed and further 
extending the closing date to May 5.  

The agency received 21 proposals by that date, including Best's.  
Nineteen offerors, not including Best, acknowledged both amendments.  
The protester states that it was able to submit its proposal by the 
extended due date because someone from the agency called Best to alert 
it to the May 5 extended due date, but that the firm never actually 
received the two amendments.  Best contends that since it did not 
receive the amendments establishing the modified square footage of the 
custodial work to be performed, it was unable to accurately respond to 
the modified work requirements.[1]    

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2304(a)(1)(A) (1988), requires contracting agencies to obtain full and 
open competition through the use of competitive procedures, the dual 
purpose of which is to ensure that a procurement is open to all 
responsible sources and to provide the government with the opportunity 
to receive fair and reasonable prices.  In pursuit of these goals, it 
is a contracting agency's affirmative obligation to use reasonable 
methods for the dissemination of solicitation documents to prospective 
contractors.  Ktech Corp.,  B-240578, Dec. 3, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  447.  
In particular, the government is required by regulation to add to the 
solicitation mailing list all firms that have been furnished 
solicitations in response to their requests, so that they will be 
furnished copies of any amendment, unless it is known that the request 
was made by an entity which is not a prospective offeror.  See Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.403, 14.205.

Concurrent with the agency's obligations in this regard, prospective 
contractors have an obligation to avail themselves of reasonable 
opportunities to obtain solicitation documents.  Fort Myer Constr. 
Corp., B-239611, Sept. 12, 1990, 90-2 CPD   para.  200.  A prospective 
contractor thus bears the risk of not receiving a solicitation 
amendment unless there is evidence (other then nonreceipt by the 
protester) establishing that the agency failed to comply with the FAR 
requirements for notice and distribution of amendments.  Shemya 
Constructors, 68 Comp. Gen. 213 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  108.  Here, the 
record establishes that the RFP and the two subsequent amendments were 
mailed to Best.  The protester has not alleged and there is no 
evidence in the record to suggest that the agency failed to comply 
with the FAR requirements for proper notice and distribution of 
solicitation documents.  Because the protester bears the risk of 
nonreceipt, the allegations do not establish a valid basis for 
protest. 

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General 
of the United States    

1. Best's Vice President did attempt to contact the agency to obtain 
the two amendments on May 2.  On the morning of May 5, the Vice 
President contacted the contract specialist, who promptly faxed the 
amendments to Best.