BNUMBER:  B-281409             
DATE:  December 21, 1998
TITLE: American Artisan Productions, Inc., B-281409, December 21,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:American Artisan Productions, Inc.

File:B-281409            
        
Date:December 21, 1998

Arthur L. Friedman for the protester. 
Amanda Coggins and Ray W. DeHart for Capitol Exhibit Services, Inc.; 
and Charlotte Frank for Concept Management Promotional Services, the 
intervenors. 
Kacie A. Haberly, Esq., and Rick P. Glassband, Esq., General Services 
Administration, for the agency. 
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that solicitation's 15-day response period was inadequate is 
denied where:  (1) the solicitation contemplated submission of offers 
for commercial items and related services and the contracting officer 
determined that 15 days was a reasonable time to prepare and submit 
proposals based upon her experience with a previous procurement for 
this requirement; (2) the requirement was synopsized in the Commerce 
Business Daily 42 days before proposals were due; (3) no potential 
offerors other than the protester complained that the response period 
was too short; and (4) five offers were received in a timely manner.

DECISION

American Artisan Productions, Inc. (AAP) protests that the Federal 
Supply Service, General Services Administration (GSA), did not allow 
sufficient time for preparation of proposals in response to request 
for proposals (RFP) No. FCXM-T8-980002-N, for the lease of an exhibit 
booth and related services for several large-scale exhibition projects 
during fiscal year 1999.  

We deny the protest.

The requirement was synopsized in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) on 
September 16, 1998.  CBDNet Submission No. 250631, Sept. 16, 1998, at 
1.  On October 13, the RFP was issued as a total small business 
set-aside to all firms that responded to the CBD synopsis.  RFP at 1; 
GSA Legal Report at 2.  The RFP required that offers be submitted by 
October 28.  RFP at 1.  The RFP requested technical and price 
proposals for a fixed-price lease of a large exhibit booth that can be 
reconfigured into smaller booths; the exhibit booths will be used at 
three different trade fairs.  RFP at 2, 6, 35.  The RFP included 
options for the lease of booths for up to four additional shows and 
for preshow, direct mail marketing services.  RFP at 2, 21-25.  The 
agency wanted to lease commercial items; therefore, the RFP included a 
number of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions germane to 
acquisitions of commercial items.[1]  Contracting Officer Statement at 
2; GSA Legal Report at 2.  

The protester states that the contracting officer telephoned AAP's 
president on October 22 to inform him that she was going to destroy 
the scale models AAP had submitted to GSA in response to the 1997 
procurement for the same project and advised him that the RFP for the 
current requirement had already been issued; AAP's president requested 
that GSA return the models via Federal Express.  Protest at 1.  The 
protester states that, later that same day, the contracting officer 
informed AAP's president that she could not ship the models and that 
she would destroy them unless the protester picked them up.  Id.  The 
protester also states that, on October 22, it downloaded the RFP from 
the Internet, requested an extension of the proposal due date, and 
again requested the return of its models.  Id.  According to the 
protester, on October 26, it again requested a 15-day extension of the 
proposal due date.  Id. at 2.  Later on October 26, the protester says 
that it received a Federal Express package that contained its scale 
models, but they were completely destroyed; the protester notified the 
contracting officer of this occurrence.  Id.  The contracting officer 
did not grant AAP's request for an extension of the proposal due date.  
Id.; RFP amendment No. 1.  Offers were received from five firms by the 
October 28 deadline.  List of Offerors, October 28, 1998.  AAP did not 
submit an offer, but filed this protest shortly before the closing 
time on October 28.

The protester contends that the 15-day period between issuance of the 
RFP and the due date for receipt of proposals was insufficient time to 
prepare and submit a proposal.  The protester also contends that the 
contracting officer further hindered AAP from submitting a timely 
proposal by improperly destroying the scale models that AAP had 
submitted in response to the previous solicitation for this work 
because AAP would have resubmitted those models as part of its 
proposal.  Protest at 1, 2.  

Agencies generally must allow at least a 30-day response time for the 
receipt of proposals from the date of issuance of the RFP.  FAR  sec.  
5.203(c).  However, an agency may allow fewer than 30 days to respond 
to an RFP when, as here, it is acquiring commercial items.  Id.; FAR  sec.  
12.205(c).  When acquiring commercial items, the contracting officer 
should afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond; 
when establishing the solicitation response time, the contracting 
officer should consider the circumstances--such as the complexity, 
commerciality, availability, and urgency--of the individual 
acquisition.  FAR  sec.  5.203(b).  Here, the RFP clearly contemplated 
offers of commercial exhibit booths and related services, and the 
agency was thus required only to afford potential offerors, including 
AAP, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and submit proposals.[2]  
The requirement was synopsized in the CBD 27 days before the RFP was 
issued and 42 days before proposals were due.  The CBD announcement 
stated that GSA would acquire exhibits and related services on a 
lease-only basis and briefly described the products (including the 
varying sizes of the exhibit booths required for each trade fair) and 
services that would be required.  CBDNet Submission No. 250631 at 1.  
The contracting officer's decision to allow only a 15-day response 
period was based upon her prior experience with the last year's 
procurement for this requirement.  GSA Legal Report at 3; Contracting 
Officer Statement at 2.  In the prior procurement, GSA solicited three 
separate proposals from each offeror (one each for purchase, lease and 
rental cost alternatives) and allowed only a 22-day response period.  
GSA Legal Report at 3.  The agency reports that no potential offeror 
complained that the response period in last year's procurement was too 
short and that it received adequate competition (i.e., six offers) in 
response to that solicitation.  Id.; Contracting Officer Statement at 
2.  Because the present RFP is less complex than last year's--the 
present RFP required proposals only for a lease rather than the 
several different cost alternatives required last year--the 
contracting officer determined that a shorter period (i.e., 15 days) 
would be sufficient for preparation of proposals.  Contracting Officer 
Statement at 2.  The contracting officer also reports that no 
complaints were received from any offeror other than AAP that the 
response period in the present procurement was too short.  Contracting 
Officer Statement at 2.  In addition, the record shows that GSA 
received offers from five competitors in response to the present RFP.  
List of Offerors, October 28, 1998.  In these circumstances, we have 
no basis to find that the proposal response period did not afford 
offerors a reasonable opportunity to prepare and submit proposals.    

Regarding the destruction of AAP's scale models, the protester's own 
account reveals that the contracting officer first asked AAP to pick 
them up and then returned them to AAP via Federal Express as the 
protester requested.  The contracting officer states that she used a 
container designed for shipping and attempted in good faith to return 
the models to the protester.  Contracting Officer Statement at 3.  GSA 
reports that the models, which were constructed of cardboard and wood, 
were packed in a sturdy packing box and left GSA in good condition and 
must have been damaged while under the control of Federal Express.  
GSA Legal Report at 4.  There is no evidence that their destruction 
was intentional on the part of the contracting officer.  Furthermore, 
as the agency reports, the RFP did not require offerors to submit 
scale models, but rather, required offers to include color renderings 
of the booth to be provided for each show.  GSA Legal Report at 4; RFP 
at 35.  Thus, while it is unfortunate that the models were damaged in 
transit, this allegation provides no basis for sustaining the protest.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. The RFP included the following commercial item provisions:  
Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items (Aug. 1998) (FAR  sec.  
52.212-1); Evaluation--Commercial Items (Oct. 1995) (FAR  sec.  52.212-2); 
Offeror Representations and Certifications--Commercial Items (Jan. 
1997) (Deviation--May 1996) (FAR  sec.  52.212-3); Contract Terms and 
Conditions--Commercial Items (Apr. 1998) (FAR  sec.  52.212-4); Contract 
Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive 
Orders--Commercial Items (June 1998) (Deviation--May 1996) (FAR  sec.  
52.212-5).  RFP at 3-6, 29-31, 33-35, 36-37, 38-44.

2. AAP asserts that the exhibition booths being acquired are not 
commercial items, because they will have to be extensively modified to 
meet GSA's specific requirements.  As noted above, however, the RFP 
included several FAR provisions applicable only to acquisitions of 
commercial items and, therefore, clearly contemplated offers of 
commercial items or booths that are made of commercial item 
components.  Prior to commenting on the agency's protest report, AAP 
never complained that the RFP should not seek offers of commercial 
items or that the modifications necessitated a longer proposal 
response time.  In any event, the FAR definition of "commercial item," 
FAR  sec.  2.101, clearly encompasses modifications to items that have been 
sold or leased to the general public so long as such modifications do 
not significantly alter the nongovernmental functions or essential 
physical characteristics of the items.  Our review of the record 
indicates that the modifications at issue here are not so extensive as 
to fall outside this definition.  See Aalco Forwarding, Inc., et al., 
B-277241.8, B-277241.9, Oct. 21, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  110 at 11-12.