BNUMBER: B-281261
DATE: January 19, 1999
TITLE: American Material Handling, Inc., B-281261, January 19, 1999
**********************************************************************
Matter of:American Material Handling, Inc.
File: B-281261
Date:January 19, 1999
Sid Goss for the protester.
Dennis A. Walker, Esq., for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest of agency's refusal to extend the date quotations were due is
denied, where it was only on the due date that the protester requested
(and the agency provided) information which the firm deemed necessary
to prepare its quotation; the protester's inability to prepare and
submit a timely quotation was due to its own failure to promptly
request and obtain the information, rather than any improper action by
the agency.
DECISION
American Material Handling, Inc. (AMH) protests the rejection of its
offer under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SP3100-98-Q-0018, issued
by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for tote boxes--open-top
containers used for transporting packages on conveyor systems. AMH
states that the RFQ did not provide the weight for the tote boxes, and
challenges DLA's subsequent refusal to extend the deadline for the
submission of quotations after this information was provided to it by
the agency.
We deny the protest.
DLA issued the solicitation on August 5, 1998 for 4,000 tote boxes to
be used as replacements and spares. The solicitation's specifications
detailed dimensional requirements, RFQ Specification for Tote Boxes at
4, so that the new tote boxes would function properly with the
conveyor system and would nest (stack) with the other previously
acquired tote boxes. To further ensure size compatibility, the RFQ
specified that an injection-molding process be used, with an existing
government-owned single cavity injection mold that DLA would supply as
government-furnished property. Id. at 3-4. The RFQ also required
that the tote boxes be made of ABS-Polymerland ABS1GP resin. Id. at
4.
Shortly before noon on August 31, the closing date for receipt of
quotations, AMH, which is a manufacturer's representative, asked for
information about the weight of the tote boxes, which the agency
provided at approximately 1:30 p.m. that same day. AMH then requested
that the deadline for the receipt of quotations be extended because
the requested weight information was necessary before a price could be
calculated, but the agency refused to do so. AMH immediately faxed a
note to the contracting officer advising that the firm would be
submitting a quotation after the due date, and that if that was not
acceptable to consider the note a protest of DLA's refusal to extend
the due date. DLA considered the note a protest.
The agency received three timely quotations, and on September 1
received a quotation from AMH. DLA denied AMH's agency-level protest
on September 17, and issued a delivery order for the tote boxes to
Phoenix Custom Molders, Inc. on September 22.[1] This protest to our
Office followed.
AMH contends that its supplier needed the information regarding the
weight of the tote boxes, and protests that it was improperly denied
the time extension necessary to employ that information, once
furnished, in calculating its quotation. The agency responds that
tote boxes must meet the required size parameters and be able to
stack, or nest properly, but may vary widely in weight due to the
temperature and the curing time in the injection mold process.
Therefore, the agency required that the tote boxes meet certain size
parameters, but purposefully omitted any weight requirements in the
RFQ. The agency also noted that previous purchases of tote boxes
where both weight and size dimensions were specified were
unsuccessful.
Where a protester contends that an agency allowed insufficient time to
prepare proposals, we require a showing that the time allowed was
inconsistent with statutory requirements or otherwise unreasonable or
insufficient, or that it precluded full and open competition. Nat'l
Med. Staffing, Inc., B-244096,
May 22, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 503 at 1.
Prospective offerors bear an affirmative duty to make every reasonable
effort to obtain solicitation materials. UpSide Down Prods.,
B-243308, July 17, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 66 at 3 (where we found that a
protester had not done so with respect to obtaining all pages of a
solicitation amendment after receiving only the first of
13 pages and the first page clearly indicated that the amendment
contained additional pages). AMH, however, did not request the
information it determined it needed to prepare a quotation until only
hours before the quotation was due, 26 days after the RFQ had been
issued. In Latins Am., Inc., B-247674, June 15, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 519,
we denied a protest that an agency did not extend the deadline for the
submission of offers in a similar situation. There, the protester
received a floppy disk necessary for proposal preparation 14 days
before the closing date but did not attempt to verify the disk's
contents until the evening before that date; the firm asked for an
extension upon finding that the disk was empty. We stated:
LAI [Latins American] did not avail itself of every reasonable
opportunity to obtain the requisite solicitation materials. . .
Notwithstanding the necessity for a good disk if it was to submit
a quote, LAI did not load the disk into a computer to verify the
contents until 13 days after receipt, on the evening before
closing. In our view, LAI should have examined the disk more
than a day before quotations were due. LAI's delay in examining
the disk contributed to its inability to submit a timely quote.
Had LAI examined the disk within a reasonable period after
receipt, it could have discovered any defect in the disk and
obtained a replacement copy in time to submit a timely quotation.
Even if the agency was at fault in furnishing a defective disk
(which is not clear from the record), the agency was not required
to extend the closing date.
Id. at 3-4.
AMH's inability to prepare a quotation by the closing date similarly
was due to its own failure to make reasonable efforts to promptly
obtain information that it deemed necessary, rather than any improper
action by the agency. We therefore will not object to the agency's
refusal to comply with the firm's last-minute request to extend the
date.[2]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. One quote was rejected because it failed to meet the solicitation's
specifications.
2. We note that AMH's late quotation was for a product made of other
than the specified resin, and also imposed a condition on the firm's
acceptance of the delivery order not provided for in the RFQ. It thus
appears that the quotation would have been unacceptable even if the
request for more time had been granted. In this respect, instead of
submitting a quotation based on a nonconforming material, AMH should
have protested the solicitation's resin specification before
quotations were due. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec.
21.2(a)(1) (1998).