TITLE:  W&W Logistics, B-283998, December 30, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283998
DATE:  December 30, 1999
**********************************************************************
W&W Logistics, B-283998, December 30, 1999

Decision

Matter of: W&W Logistics

File: B-283998

Date: December 30, 1999

Terence Cusick for the protester.

Walter R. Pierce, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

Christine F. Davis, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where the protester allegedly submitted its quote to the agency via
facsimile, but the agency denies receipt of the quote and the record
contains no proof of receipt, the protester has not established that the
agency received its quote.

DECISION

W&W Logistics protests the issuance of a purchase order to Alfred Conhagen
Co., under request for quotations (RFQ) No. SPO760-99-Q-1215, issued by the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for a quantity of shaft seal assembly kits.

We deny the protest.

The RFQ product item description identified several approved manufacturers
of the part, including Conhagen. [1] RFQ at 2. The agency sent the RFQ via
facsimile to potential vendors, including the protester and Conhagen.
Contracting Officer's Report para. 4.b. The agency received five quotes and
selected Conhagen based on its lowest-priced quote. Id. para. 4.c, 4.e. The
agency reports that it did not receive a quote from the protester. Id. para.para.
4.d, 7.

W&W alleges that it submitted a quote via facsimile transmission at a price
lower than Conhagen's. To establish the facsimile transmission, W&W has
furnished a copy of its quote, above which appears a facsimile transmission
report indicating that the protester established a connection with the
agency's facsimile machine. Notwithstanding this evidence, the contracting
officer states that the agency has no record of receiving the protester's
quote. Id.

Vendors have a duty to see that their quotes reach the designated government
office on time, and vendors relying on facsimile transmissions to file
documents assume the risk of nonreceipt by the agency. See Comspace Corp.,
B-277540, Oct. 24, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 111 at 3. Here, the contracting officer
denies that the agency received the protester's quote, and the protester's
facsimile transmission report is inadequate, by itself, to establish receipt
by the agency. This is so because our Office does not regard a transmission
record within the protester's control, such as this one, to be definitive
evidence of transmission, since such a record can be created or altered to
support a protester's contention. See Southern CAD/CAM, B-244745, Nov. 13,
1991, 91-2 CPD para. 453 at 3. In addition, even accepting the protester's
transmission record as evidence that it actually transmitted its quote, this
alone does not establish that the agency received the quote, since DLA
denies receipt and there is no other evidence that the agency actually
received the quote. See The Microscope Co., B-257015, Aug. 8, 1994, 94-2 CPD
para. 157 at 2. Accordingly, we find that the protester has not established that
the agency received its quote. [2]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. W&W protests that the agency improperly designated Conhagen as an
approved source of supply for the solicited part. The basis for this protest
was apparent from the face of the solicitation, which identified Conhagen as
an approved manufacturer of the part. If W&W disagreed with this
determination, it should have protested the matter before quotes were due,
not after issuance of the purchase order. Thus, the issue is untimely and
will not be considered. See 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (1999); Newgard Indus.,
Inc., B-257052, Aug. 11, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 70 at 3 n.3.

2. The protester argues that the agency should have contacted W&W to
determine if it intended to submit a quote. The protester has cited no
authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none.