TITLE:  Baldt Inc., B-288315, August 28, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-288315
DATE:  August 28, 2001
**********************************************************************
Baldt Inc., B-288315, August 28, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Baldt Inc.

File: B-288315

Date: August 28, 2001

Glenn S. Suplee for the protester.

Amalia Evola, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the
decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that awardee did not possess valid Commercial and Government
Entity code at time of award is denied where documentation furnished by
agency shows that it verified awardee's code prior to award.

2. Protest that provision imposing domestic restriction on manufacture of
anchor and mooring chain improperly was omitted from solicitation and
subsequent contract is dismissed as untimely where protester failed to raise
the issue before time set for receipt of initial proposals.

DECISION

Baldt Inc. protests the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award of a contract
to Lister Chain & Forge, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
SP0490-01-R-0805, for flash-butt welded, stud-link (1.625 inch) chain. Baldt
contends that the awardee did not possess an active Commercial and
Government Entity (CAGE) code, and that the agency improperly modified the
contract to include a domestic manufacture restriction that was omitted from
the RFP.

We deny the protest.

CAGE CODE

The RFP required that each offeror be registered in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database prior to award. RFP sect. I16; Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) sect. 252.204-7004. An offeror is
registered in the CCR database when "all mandatory information, including
the . . . [CAGE] code, is in the CCR database; [and] . . . the CAGE code
ha[s] been validated . . . ." DFARS sect. 252.204-7004(a)(4); Agency Report
(AR), July 27, 2001, CCR Handbook at 2. In addition, the RFP "requested"
offerors to furnish their CAGE codes. RFP sect. L2; DFARS sect. 252.204-7001. [1]

Baldt contends that Lister did not possess an active CAGE code on the day
that the contract was awarded, and therefore should not have been awarded
the contract. In support of its argument, Baldt cites a printed copy of a
computer search, researched on the Defense Logistics Information Service
(DLIS) CAGE Code Lookup WebServer. Protest, exh. 3. The printout, dated
April 9, 2001, shows Lister Chain and Forge, Inc., with no street address,
and an OFXJ9 CAGE code. The printout shows the status of the CAGE code as
"F-Obsolete," and that the code was last updated on March 19, 2001. Baldt
concludes that, since Lister's CAGE code was obsolete as of the last update,
shortly before the March 23 award, Lister was ineligible for award.

The agency responds that the contract specialist verified Lister's CAGE code
and its CCR registration using DLA's Pre-Award Contracting System/Standard
Automated Material Management System (DPACS/SAMMS) on March 5, and that
Lister was properly registered in the CCR database and had a valid CAGE code
at that time. The agency explains that the contract specialist used the
database's "Choose Awardee" screen, which includes a block showing the
offeror's CAGE code and a block entitled "CCR" which will be checked if the
offeror being researched is registered in the CCR database. (Again, CCR
registration occurs when all mandatory information, including the CAGE code,
is in the CCR database and has been validated.) If the offeror is not
registered in the CCR database, the CCR block will be blank, and the agency
will be unable to prepare an award document. AR at 2 and Contract
Specialist's Statement. The agency has submitted a copy of its
March 5 search printout, which shows Lister's CAGE code and a checkmark in
Lister's CCR block. The contract specialist concluded from this information
that Lister was currently registered in the CCR and had a valid CAGE code.
AR at 2 and Contract Specialist's Statement.

As for Baldt's printout, DLA notes that the DLIS site that Baldt accessed
includes a cautionary statement that the data provided "is intended to be an
informative reference only and should not be used to support a final
decision in regards to a procurement action." AR, CAGE Code Information. In
any case, reports DLA, Baldt is misreading the DLIS printout. The agency,
citing the manual for the Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS), for
which DLIS is responsible, explains that the status code "F-Obsolete" refers
only to the fact that the location of the company is unknown, and resulted
from the fact that the printout does not include a street address for
Lister. AR at 3; FLIS Procedures Manual, DOD 4100.39-M, v. 1 at sect. 1.1.4 and
v. 10 at Table 19. In this regard, a table from the manual, entitled
"Commercial and Government Entity Status Codes," lists status codes and
their definitions. For the F code noted on Baldt's printout, the definition
reads, in relevant part: "Obsolete. Location of company unknown." AR at 2-3;
FLIS Procedures Manual, v. 10 at Table 19. The agency also has provided its
own DLIS printout, dated July 24, which shows Lister's street address; the
printout states that Lister's CAGE code was last updated April 11, 2001 and
gives its status as "A-Active." AR, DLIS CAGE Code Lookup WebServer at 1.

In its response, Baldt reiterates that Lister's OFXJ9 CAGE code was not
active on March 23 "insofar as the DLIS Website is concerned," Baldt
Comments, Aug. 2, 2001, at 1, but it does not otherwise refute the agency's
explanation. Specifically, Baldt has not shown that it was unreasonable for
the agency to rely on the results of its DPACS/SAMMS search--the printout of
which included a checkmark in the CCR block and a CAGE code--and conclude
therefrom that Lister was registered in the CCR database and had a valid
CAGE code. Nor has Baldt rebutted the agency's explanation of the F-Obsolete
status code as referring simply to the fact that the location of the company
was not listed. In these circumstances, we conclude that the agency
reasonably determined that Lister met the CAGE code requirement.

IMPROPER MODIFICATION

After award, the agency determined that the solicitation improperly failed
to include the clause at DFARS sect. 252.225-7019, Restriction on Acquisition of
Foreign Anchor and Mooring Chain, which imposes a domestic restriction on
the manufacture of the chain. [2] Agency Request for Dismissal, July 12,
2001, at 2. On June 7, Lister submitted a letter stating that "we comply
with all restrictions set forth in DFARS sect. 252.225-7019." Letter from Lister
to Agency, June 7, 2001. On June 20, the agency and Lister entered into a
post-award bilateral modification incorporating the terms of the clause into
the contract. Agency Request for Dismissal, July 12, 2001, at 2.

Baldt contends that modifying the contract instead of recompeting the
requirement after adding the clause to the RFP was improper because, among
other things, it violated the automatic stay provisions of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, transformed the contract into a sole-source
procurement and subverted the competitive process. [3] Protest at 2.

Baldt essentially is arguing that, in lieu of the modification, the
solicitation should have been amended, and the requirement recompeted. This
argument is untimely. Under our Regulations, a protest based on an alleged
solicitation impropriety must be filed prior to the time set for receipt of
initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1). As the agency points out, the
domestic restriction clause was required to be included in the RFP. DFARS
sect. 225.7012-3; see DOD Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. Law No. 106-259, sect.
8016, 114 Stat. 678 (Aug. 9, 2000). The omission of the clause therefore
constituted an apparent solicitation deficiency, and in order for Baldt to
argue that the RFP should be amended to add the provision, it was required
to do so prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. Because Baldt
did not do so, it cannot now argue that the agency should have recompeted
the requirement with the omitted clause. Neither is Baldt's argument for our
consideration merely because it is cast in terms of the propriety of the
modification. The contract modification itself concerns a matter of contract
administration, which we will not review. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a).

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The CCR database is the primary Department of Defense (DOD) repository
for contractor information required for the conduct of business with DOD.
DFARS sect. 252.204-7004(a)(1).

2. DFARS sect. 252.225-7019 requires that anchor and mooring chain be
manufactured in the United States from components which are substantially
manufactured in the United States.

3. In an August 2 submission, Baldt argues for the first time that the
modification is improper because it was a material change, gave Lister "two
bites at the apple," and was prejudicial to the protester. Baldt Comments,
Aug. 2, 2001, at 1-2. These assertions are untimely. Under our Bid Protest
Regulations, protests based on other than solicitation improprieties must be
filed no later than 10 days after the protester knew or should have known
their bases. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001). Our Regulations do not
contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues;
where a protester raises a broad ground of protest in its initial
submission, but fails to provide details within its knowledge until later,
so that a further response from the agency would be needed for an objective
review of the matter, these later issues will not be considered. Litton
Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., B-262099, Oct. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 215 at 2-3.
Baldt also argues for the first time that Lister is not a legally registered
corporation in any state, and therefore cannot be properly registered in the
CCR. Baldt Comments, Aug. 2, 2001, at 2. This argument is untimely for the
same reason. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2).