BNUMBER:  B-277540 
DATE:  October 24, 1997
TITLE: Comspace Corporation, B-277540, October 24, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Comspace Corporation

File:     B-277540

Date:October 24, 1997

Irving Becker for the protester.
Ronald M. Pettit, Esq., and Jeffery Greer, Esq., Defense Logistics 
Agency, for the agency.
Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency lost and therefore failed to consider an allegedly 
low-priced quote submitted by telefacsimile is denied where it is not 
certain that the quote was ever received by the agency and there is no 
evidence of any repeated mishandling by the agency of telefacsimile 
quotes. 

DECISION

Comspace Corporation protests the issuance of a purchase order to Zeus 
Electronics under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP0960-97-Q-1828, 
issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
for certain digital microcircuits.  The protester contends that it 
submitted a lower-priced quote than Zeus and, therefore, that DLA 
should have issued the purchase order to Comspace. 

We deny the protest.

The RFQ was issued by DLA under simplified acquisition procedures 
using the Defense Supply Center, Columbus (DSCC) electronic bulletin 
board (EBB) to solicit and receive quotes.  The EBB is available to 
any vendor which has access to a computer, possesses a valid 
Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code (which it receives after 
registering with the agency), and has an active password.  Vendors can 
submit quotes in response to RFQs issued by DLA under these automated 
procedures via the EBB or the Internet, or by telefacsimile (fax) 
transmission.
  
The RFQ at issue, which was posted on the EBB on June 12, 1997, stated 
that the agency required 193 designated digital microcircuits for use 
in various aircraft and called for quotations to be furnished by the 
close of business on June 26.  On June 18, the protester telephoned 
the agency and requested that the contract specialist send the firm a 
hard copy of the RFQ.  On that same date, the contract specialist 
requested that the DSCC distribution office mail a copy of the 
solicitation to Comspace.  The agency received two quotes by the close 
of business on June 26, including a quote from Zeus, but did not 
receive a quote from the protester.  The agency issued a purchase 
order to Zeus, whose quote was low, on July 3.   

The protester contends that it submitted a quote for the solicited 
part number at a lower price than Zeus quoted.[1]  Comspace alleges 
that although it requested a hard copy of the RFQ on four occasions, 
it never received the solicitation.  The protester states that the 
contract specialist advised the vendor to submit the quote on company 
letterhead, and it claims to have sent its quotation by fax machine to 
the contract specialist's attention on the morning of June 26.  To 
establish this transmission, Comspace has furnished a copy of what it 
states is its transmitted quote on which there appears a handwritten 
notation reading "[s]ent 6/26/97 8:41 AM."  The protester claims that 
this is the fourth or fifth instance where DLA has advised Comspace of 
non-receipt of one of its offers and argues that its protest should be 
sustained because "[i]f, in fact, faxed documents are not being 
handled by the agency properly, this action is not the fault or 
negligence of this contractor."

As noted above, DSCC states that it never received Comspace's 
quotation, and the agency has submitted an affidavit to our Office 
from the cognizant contract specialist in which she states that she 
did not receive a quotation from Comspace before either the June 26 
requested date or the July 3 order date.  The agency has also provided 
a copy of its agency source list for this microcircuit on which 
Comspace is listed as a source and, next to its name, is a handwritten 
notation reading "copy sent 18 June 97 in phone request by buyer."   

Our Office conducted a telephone hearing with the parties during which 
the protester's president stated that, while Comspace's fax machine 
may have the capability to generate a real-time confirmation of 
outgoing fax transmissions,[2] the protester does not use this option.  
Rather, it is Comspace's standard practice to make a handwritten 
notation, indicating the date and time of outgoing fax transmittals on 
the transmittal after it has been faxed.  In this case, as noted 
above, a Comspace representative wrote a date and time on its copy of 
the quote.  Comspace's president also stated that the company's fax 
machine maintains an internal log or status report of transmissions, 
and is capable of storing a record of up to 30 transmittals.  At our 
request, Comspace submitted a copy of this status report to our 
Office.  The report shows that there was an outgoing transmission to 
DSCC's fax number for the RFQ on June 26 at 8:38 a.m.  Comspace also 
submitted, at our request, a copy of its telephone bill, which shows a 
call to the DSCC fax number given in the solicitation at 8:40:55 a.m. 
on June 26.  

In response to our questions concerning the basis for Comspace's 
allegation that DSCC had previously lost four or five of its faxed 
submissions, the protester pointed to three previous protests filed 
with our Office.  One protest (Comspace Corp., B-277541, Aug. 20, 
1997), which was withdrawn by Comspace, did not concern an allegedly 
lost submission and another (Comspace Corp., B-277742, Oct. 9, 1997) 
involved the alleged loss of a quote sent via express mail, not by 
fax, and was dismissed because Comspace failed to comment on the 
agency report.  In the third protest (Comspace Corp., B-277306, Aug. 
7, 1997), the agency had issued a purchase order to another vendor, 
but when, during the pendency of the protest, it discovered that 
Comspace had submitted a timely quote via the EBB, it took corrective 
action.  Thus, Comspace has not presented any evidence which supports 
its allegation that DSCC has lost or mishandled other of its faxed 
quotations.

Offerors and quoters have a duty to see that their offers and quotes, 
and any modifications to them, reach the designated government office 
on time.  Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.412(b); see Southern 
CAD/CAM, 71 Comp. Gen. 78, 79-80 (1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  453 at 3.  
Offerors and quoters using fax transmission to file documents assume 
the risk of nonreceipt by the agency.  Southern CAD/CAM, supra.

While Comspace's protest submissions show that the protester did fax 
something to DSCC on June 26, the record does not establish either the 
content of this submission or receipt of the transmission by DSCC.  
Evidence of fax transmission does not, of itself, establish receipt.  
This is especially so where contracting officials deny receipt and 
there is no conclusive contemporaneous evidence of receipt.  Southern 
CAD/CAM, supra.  Here, there is no independent evidence, apart from 
the protester's own assertion, that the transmission was a quote or, 
assuming it was a quote, that it was in fact identical to the copy 
that Comspace submitted to our Office with its protest.  Further, 
notwithstanding its allegation, the evidence submitted by the 
protester does not show any pattern of repeated instances of lost or 
mishandled faxed quotes on the part of the agency.  

Agencies do have an obligation to have procedures in place not only to 
receive quotations, but also to reasonably safeguard quotations 
actually received and to give them fair consideration.  East West 
Research Inc., B-239565, B-239566, Aug. 21, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  147 at 4; 
aff'd, Defense Logistics Agency--Recon., B-239565.2, B-239566.2, Mar. 
19, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  298 at 2-3.  However, we recognize that an agency 
occasionally will lose or misplace a bid or quotation, especially 
where, as here, the procuring activity is responsible for a high 
volume of small purchase buys,  Advanced Seal Tech., Inc., B-254667, 
Dec. 30, 1993, 94-1 CPD  para.  4 at 2.  Thus, even if DSCC received 
Comspace's quote and subsequently lost or misplaced it, while this 
would be unfortunate, the one-time negligent loss of a quotation by an 
agency would not entitle the quoter to any relief.  Id.  

Under this EBB procurement, facsimile transmissions are a secondary 
means of submitting quotes and, here, the record shows that one 
facsimile machine was denoted for receipt of quotes and this machine 
was monitored by a designated clerk whose desk is located next to the 
machine, and who routinely delivers quotes to the addressees on a 
daily basis.  Nothing in the record suggests a pattern of loss of 
faxed quotes by the agency or that normal procedures were not followed 
on the day Comspace allegedly transmitted its quote, and there is no 
basis to conclude that the agency improperly failed to consider 
Comspace's quote.
  
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Zeus quoted a unit price of $29 ($5,597 for the total order); 
Comspace asserts that it submitted a quote at a unit price of $21.95 
($4,236.35 for the total order).

2. We note that many fax machines have the capability of generating, 
shortly after an outgoing transmission, a real-time confirmation of 
the transmission, including (among other things) a reduced copy of the 
first page of faxed materials.