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).