TITLE:  Williams-Trane Company, Inc., B-283522, November 22, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283522
DATE:  November 22, 1999
**********************************************************************
Williams-Trane Company, Inc., B-283522, November 22, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Williams-Trane Company, Inc.

File: B-283522

Date: November 22, 1999

John B. Denniston, Esq., and Thomas W. Krause, Esq., Covington & Burling,
for the protester.

Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., and Larry E. Beall, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that under request for quotations, issued as a simplified commercial
acquisition with a late quotation provision, agency improperly permitted
several vendors to clarify and revise submissions after due date, in order
to enable products offered to satisfy the solicitation's technical
requirements, is denied where protester's submission establishing its
technical acceptability was also received by the agency after the due date.

DECISION

Williams-Trane Company, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to
RNK International under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACW01-99-T-0145,
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purchase of air
conditioning equipment for installation at the Jim Woodruff Powerhouse
located in Chattahoochee, Florida. The protester argues that additional
technical information and revisions provided by RNK after the due date for
receipt of quotations constituted an untimely modification that should not
have been solicited or accepted by the agency.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ, issued on May 21, 1999, was conducted as a commercial item
procurement under simplified acquisition procedures. Contracting Officer's
Statement at 1. The RFQ contained the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
provision entitled "Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items,"
which requires vendors to provide a technical description of items offered
in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the solicitation
requirements through the submission of product literature or other documents
if necessary. FAR sect. 52.212-1(b)(4). Quotations and descriptive technical
information were due by June 11, 1999. FAR sect. 52.212-1(f) provides that late
offers or modification of offers generally will not be considered.

The protester states that its representative spoke with the contract
specialist on June 11, prior to the time set for receipt of quotations, and
was advised that the descriptive literature and technical information
required by the RFQ was not required to be submitted at the same time as the
rest of the quote. Affidavit of Protester's Sales Manager, Oct. 1, 1999, at
2. According to the contract specialist, he advised the protester to submit
its signed and dated offer and to furnish the technical data as soon as
possible. The contract specialist maintains that he did not advise the
protester that the due date and time for quotations had been extended or
waived. Affidavit of Contract Specialist, Oct. 8, 1999, at 1.

The following four quotations were received by June 11:

Williams-Trane $79,084

RNK $66,000

Ferguson Enterprises $45,094

AC Industrial, Inc. $44,051

Contracting Officer's Statement at 1.

The quotations submitted by RNK, Ferguson and AC were accompanied by the
required technical information. The protester submitted its price quotation
on June 11, but failed to submit any technical information describing its
proposed equipment until June 15. The protester maintains that it submitted
the technical data without further conversation with the agency. Affidavit
of Protester's Sales Manager, supra. However, the agency reports that it
contacted the protester and left several messages to remind the protester
that the technical data had not been received. Affidavit of Contract
Specialist, supra.

After evaluating the technical/descriptive information provided by the
vendors, on June 24, the evaluators recommended that the quotes from
Ferguson and AC be rejected for failure to demonstrate that their proposed
equipment met the technical requirements. Agency Report (AR), Tab D. RNK's
quote met the requirements of the RFQ with the exception of the condensing
unit. Id. The equipment proposed by the protester met the RFQ
specifications. Id.

After reviewing the evaluators' comments, the agency decided that it was in
the best interest of the government to contact Ferguson, AC and RNK to
discuss the deficiencies noted by the evaluators, and to afford them an
opportunity to submit revisions to their technical information by June 30.
Contracting Officer's Statement at 2. These vendors were not allowed to
change their prices. AR at 3. No additional information was requested from
the protester because by June 24 its submissions had established compliance
with the RFQ technical requirements. After evaluation of the additional
information submitted by Ferguson, AC and RNK, the agency determined that
Ferguson and AC still did not demonstrate compliance with the
specifications. RNK's revision corrected the deficiencies noted in the
original submission by proposing a slightly different mix of equipment that
met the requirements. Since RNK submitted the lowest priced technically
acceptable quotation, it was determined to be in the best interest of the
government to make award to RNK. After receiving notification of the award,
Williams-Trane filed an agency-level protest on July 19. On August 19, the
agency denied the protest and issued the purchase order to RNK on August 20.
Williams-Trane filed this protest with our Office on August 26.

Williams-Trane's objection to the agency's decision to accept RNK's
post-closing modification of its quote is without merit. The protester takes
the position that, since this RFQ contained a late quotation provision and
substantial evaluation had taken place, RNK's revised quote, which actually
modified its offered product, was a late quotation that should not have been
accepted. While the agency's acceptance of late submissions was inconsistent
with the late quotation clause that was included in the solicitation, all of
the vendors, including the protester, benefited similarly from the agency's
flexibility in this regard. As outlined above, the protester submitted the
descriptive data that demonstrated the acceptability of its product after
the date set for receipt of quotations. [1] Thus, the protester was afforded
an opportunity to make its otherwise noncompliant quote technically
acceptable through the late submission of technical material, in derogation
of the late quotation clause in the solicitation. Since it had already
accepted the late submission of technical information by the protester, we
find unobjectionable, in the context of the use of simplified acquisition
procedures, the agency's attempt to enhance competition through the
acceptance of additional technical information and revisions to permit the
other vendors to establish compliance with the specifications. Simplified
acquisition procedures emphasize efficiency rather than formal procedure
and, when using them, agencies have considerable discretion in their
approach, as long as it promotes competition to the maximum extent
practicable. FAR sect. 13.106-2(b)(2); Cromartie and Breakfield, B-279859, July
27, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 32 at 2. Here, the vendors benefited similarly from the
agency's willingness to accept late submissions, hence the protester was not
prejudiced by the agency's acceptance of late technical submissions.

In its comments filed with our Office on October 4, the protester complains
about the agency's use of simplified acquisition procedures because there
was nothing in the RFQ that indicated to vendors that simplified acquisition
procedures were to govern the procurement. This issue is untimely raised. In
its initial protest submission, the protester specifically stated that this
acquisition was conducted using simplified acquisition procedures. Moreover,
the agency, in its August 20 response to the agency-level protest, stated
that simplified acquisition procedures were used. Protests that are not
based upon alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10
days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known,
whichever is earlier. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (1999). The protester first
objected to the agency's failure to inform vendors that simplified
acquisition procedures were applicable to this procurement in its October 4
comments to the agency report, more than 10 days after it learned the basis
of protest. Therefore this protest basis is untimely. [2]

As for the protester's argument that the agency failed to follow the
procedures in FAR sect. 15.306 by holding discussions with three of the vendors
but not with Williams-Trane, this issue is also untimely. The protester knew
from the agency's August 20 denial of its agency-level protest that
discussions had been held with the other three vendors and first protested
this more than 10 days later when it filed its comments with our Office on
October 4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. While the protester maintains that it received oral advice that the
descriptive information could be submitted at a later date, oral advice
contrary to the terms of a solicitation does not bind the government and an
offeror relies on such advice at its own risk. Systems 4, Inc., B-270543,
Dec. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 281 at 2.

2. Moreover, the agency points out that there is no FAR provision that
requires agencies to announce in an RFQ that simplified acquisition
procedures will be used, and the protester has failed to reference any such
provision. We are unaware of any such notice requirement and, on the
contrary, the FAR specifically provides that agencies may use simplified
acquisition procedures when purchasing commercial items and requires
agencies to use simplified acquisition procedures to the maximum extent
practicable for the acquisition of commercial items exceeding the simplified
acquisition threshold but not exceeding $5,000,000, including options. FAR sect.
12.203.