BNUMBER:  B-280980 
DATE:  December 14, 1998
TITLE: Advanced Seal Technology, Inc., B-280980, December 14, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Advanced Seal Technology, Inc.

File:     B-280980

Date:December 14, 1998

James P. Rome, Esq., for the protester.
Walter R. Pierce, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency failed to consider quotation allegedly sent by 
facsimile is denied where the record does not show that the agency 
received the quotation.

DECISION

Advanced Seal Technology, Inc. (AST) protests the issuance of a 
purchase order to Quality Control Corporation (QCC) under request for 
quotations (RFQ) No. SPO760-98-Q-1478, issued by the Defense Logistics 
Agency for seal assemblies.  AST contends that it submitted the 
low-priced quotation in response to the solicitation.

We deny the protest.

On July 7, 1998, the agency issued the RFQ for spring-loaded shaft 
seal assemblies, with a list of three approved sources and their 
corresponding part numbers.  A synopsis prepared for the Commerce 
Business Daily (CBD) identified the buyer, with her telephone and 
facsimile numbers.  The RFQ itself listed a different facsimile number 
in the address box for the contracting activity, the Defense Supply 
Center, Columbus (DSCC).

On September 2, the protester contacted the agency regarding the 
status of the procurement and was told that DSCC intended to issue a 
purchase order to QCC at a price of $950 per unit.  The protester 
asked the agency what had happened to its quotation, which, it 
asserted, was lower in price.  After a review of the file, the buyer 
advised AST that it had no record of receiving a quotation from AST.  
This protest followed.

AST has submitted affidavits from its president stating that, on 
August 6, it sent a quotation to one of the buyer's facsimile 
numbers[1] and that, on August 14, it sent an amended quotation, for 
an increased quantity, to the facsimile number for DSCC listed in the 
RFQ.  AST has provided no record of having sent the facsimile quote 
other than a copy of its telephone bill for August, which lists a call 
to the DSCC facsimile number on August 14.

At the request of our Office, DSCC provided information on its 
procedures for handling and safeguarding quotations.  According to 
DSCC, procurement personnel have access to two "floor model" facsimile 
machines and an electronic facsimile system called "FACSys," which is 
integrated into the DSCC computer system.  Affidavit of James W. 
Patterson, exhibit A to agency letter dated Oct. 23, 1998 at 1 
(Patterson affidavit).  Buyers and clerks are responsible for sorting 
documents received by the floor machines into trays for the 
appropriate buying unit, for later delivery; no log of incoming 
correspondence is maintained.  With regard to FACSys, 25 to 30 buyers 
share the same telephone number, and transmissions to that number are 
displayed on the screen of each buyer's personal computer.  Buyers are 
responsible for retrieving FACSys information from their computer 
screens; sometimes a clerk retrieves the information by printing a 
copy for delivery to the buyer.  In all cases, a hard copy of each 
quote is printed, after which the electronic correspondence is 
deleted.  Id.  FACSys does create a record of incoming transmissions.  
Affidavit of Carolyn M. Warren, exhibit B to agency letter dated Oct. 
23, 1998 at 1.

While AST asserts that it sent its amended quotation to the buyer's 
FACSys number on August 14, the FACSys log of incoming calls shows 
only one call on August 14 from an unidentified telephone number in 
AST's 815 area code, and it is to an extension different from any of 
those listed in the RFQ or the CBD synopsis.  Thus, apart from the 
protester's own sworn statement, the only evidence that AST submitted 
a quotation is the entry on AST's August telephone bill, which shows a 
call to the FACSys number on August 14.

Firms submitting quotations have a duty to see that their quotations 
reach the designated government office on time.  Southern CAD/CAM, 
B-244745, Nov. 13, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  453.  In particular, quoters using 
facsimile transmissions to file documents assume the risk of 
nonreceipt by the agency.  See, e.g., Huntington Valley Indus., 
B-274303, Nov. 29, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  206 at 3.  Here, the record does 
not establish receipt of AST's quotation by the agency.  The sole 
evidence that the quotation was transmitted is the August 14 entry on 
AST's telephone bill; however, the contracting agency denies receipt 
of any such transmission, an assertion supported by the absence of any 
indication in the FACSys log of receipt of any transmission from AST 
that day.  Given the absence of evidence documenting receipt, we have 
no basis to conclude that the quotation, if sent, in fact was 
received.  Huntington Valley Indus., supra; Advanced Seal Tech., Inc., 
B-254667, Dec. 30, 1993, 94-1 CPD  para.  4 at 2.

Even assuming that AST did submit a quotation, which DSCC somehow 
mishandled, there is no basis for allowing the protester to resubmit 
its quotation, since there is no certainty that the copy here, which 
AST submitted to our Office after award, is in fact identical to the 
original.  Displacing an otherwise successful competitor on the basis 
of a quotation submitted well after the closing date is not consistent 
with maintaining the integrity of the competitive system.  Advanced 
Seal Tech., Inc., supra.

It is true that agencies have a fundamental obligation to have 
procedures in place to receive and safeguard quotations.  However, 
even with appropriate procedures in place, an agency occasionally will 
lose or misplace a bid or quotation; while this is unfortunate and 
agencies must have procedures to minimize the possibility of loss, the 
occasional negligent loss of a quotation by an agency does not entitle 
the quoter to any relief.  Id.  Here, AST does not allege that DSCC 
deliberately lost its quotation or has a history or pattern of losing 
such quotations, apart from the quotations here.  Further, it clear 
from the record that the agency had adequate procedures in place for 
receiving and handling facsimile quotations.[2]  Consequently, we have 
no basis to question the agency's actions here.[3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. There is a discrepancy in AST's account regarding the number to 
which the August 6 quotation was submitted; in his August 4 affidavit, 
AST's president states that the transmission was sent to extension 
4387, while in its October 19 comments on the agency report, AST 
states that it was sent to extension 4360.

2. AST cites East West Research, Inc., B-239565, B-239566, Aug. 21, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  147, aff'd, Defense Logistics Agency--Recon., 
B-239565.2, B-239566.2, Mar. 19, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  298, to argue that 
the agency's alleged loss of AST's two quotations constitutes more 
than "occasional negligence" for which AST is entitled to relief.  
That case is clearly distinguishable from the protest here.  In East 
West Research, the record showed that the agency had lost two 
quotations from the same firm in less than 1 week; the agency's 
facsimile logs showed that the quotes had been received and the agency 
failed to establish that it had reasonable procedures for document 
handling after receipt.  None of those circumstances are present here.  
There is no evidence that the quotations were received--in fact, AST 
has proferred no evidence that it ever transmitted the August 6 
version of its quotation--and the agency has shown that it has 
adequate procedures in place.

3. In response to an inquiry from the agency, the supplier listed on 
the copy of AST's quote submitted with the protest advised the agency 
it did not provide a quotation to the protester.  AST has alleged, as 
an additional ground of protest, that the agency's contacts with its 
potential supplier constituted an improper intrusion on its business 
relationship with that supplier and resulted in an improper disclosure 
of its price.  Even assuming that the agency acted as AST asserts, 
there is no basis to believe that the agency's actions had any effect 
on the evaluation and award  process for the instant solicitation.  
Accordingly, in this regard, AST fails to state a valid basis of 
protest.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5 (1998); see Custom Data Servs., B-271288.2, 
Oct. 9, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  140 at 5 (to state a valid basis of protest, 
protester must demonstrate that agency's actions could have had an 
impact on the evaluation and selection decision).