B-171398(1), MAR 30, 1971

B-171398(1): Mar 30, 1971

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THE FACTS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT OFFERORS TO MEET THE REVISED DEADLINE. THERE IS NO BASIS TO OBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REJECT PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL. THE PROTEST IS THEREFORE DENIED. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT AWARD WILL NOT BE MADE UNTIL A DECISION IS RENDERED BY OUR OFFICE. WERE ISSUED. AMENDMENT NO. 0006 STATED AS FOLLOWS: "THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS IS HEREBY EXTENDED TO 4:P.M. 70 NOV 04.". THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TO "EXTEND" THE HOUR AND DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS BUT TO MOVE THE DATE BACK FROM NOVEMBER 11 TO NOVEMBER 4. THE ADVANCE OF THE DEADLINE DATE WAS DICTATED BY THE URGENCY OF THE PROCUREMENT.

B-171398(1), MAR 30, 1971

BID PROTEST - LATE BID DECISION DENYING PROTEST AGAINST REJECTION OF PROPOSAL UNDER AN RFQ ISSUED BY THE NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PA., FOR ONE HYDRAULIC COMPONENT TEST STAND AND RELATED TECHNICAL DATA. ALTHOUGH AN AMENDMENT CHANGED THE HOUR AND DATE FOR BID OPENING FROM NOVEMBER 11, 1970, TO 4:P.M. NOVEMBER 4, 1970, THE FACTS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT OFFERORS TO MEET THE REVISED DEADLINE, WHICH ELEVEN OUT OF TWELVE OFFERORS DID. THERE IS NO BASIS TO OBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REJECT PROTESTANT'S PROPOSAL, AND THE PROTEST IS THEREFORE DENIED.

TO PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1970, PROTESTING AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATIONS (RFQ) NO. N00156-71-Q-2004, ISSUED ON JULY 31, 1970, BY THE NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT AWARD WILL NOT BE MADE UNTIL A DECISION IS RENDERED BY OUR OFFICE.

THE RFQ REQUESTED QUOTATIONS FOR ONE HYDRAULIC COMPONENT TEST STAND (HCT- 12) AND RELATED TECHNICAL DATA. A TOTAL OF SIX AMENDMENTS, NUMBERED 0001 THROUGH 0006, WERE ISSUED. AMENDMENTS NO. 0001 THROUGH 0005 EXTENDED THE SPECIFIED DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS, THE LAST EXTENDED THE DEADLINE TO NOVEMBER 11, 1970. AMENDMENT NO. 0006 STATED AS FOLLOWS:

"THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS IS HEREBY EXTENDED TO 4:P.M. 70 NOV 04."

THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TO "EXTEND" THE HOUR AND DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS BUT TO MOVE THE DATE BACK FROM NOVEMBER 11 TO NOVEMBER 4. THE ADVANCE OF THE DEADLINE DATE WAS DICTATED BY THE URGENCY OF THE PROCUREMENT. TWELVE PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SOLICITATION; ELEVEN WERE RECEIVED WITHIN THE DEADLINE SET UNDER AMENDMENT NO. 0006; THE TWELFTH, SUBMITTED BY YOUR FIRM WAS POSTMARKED NOVEMBER 9, 1970, AND WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY UNTIL LATER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY PROPOSES TO REJECT YOUR PROPOSAL AS LATE PURSUANT TO CLAUSE NO. 9105 OF THE RFQ.

YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 25, 1970, STATES THAT YOU RECEIVED AMENDMENT NO. 0006 DURING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2, 1970, AND THAT THE AMENDMENT DID NOT HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE STAMPED ON IT.YOUR LETTER URGES THAT "AMENDMENT NO. 0006 WAS AMBIGUOUS AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT MISLED PARKER HANNIFIN BY INTRODUCING A REQUIRED DATE AND THEN RETRACTING IT." YOUR LETTER ALSO STATES THAT AMENDMENT NO. 0006 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY YOU IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT YOU TO MEET THE NOVEMBER 4 DEADLINE.

AMENDMENT NO. 0005 HAD AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 26, 1970. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT AMENDMENT NO. 0006, WHICH DID NOT HAVE AN AMENDMENT DATE, WAS MAILED TO ALL OFFERORS ON OCTOBER 27, 1970. IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT AMENDMENTS NO. 0005 AND 0006 WERE RECEIVED BY THE VARIOUS OFFERORS WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF EACH OTHER.

THE WORD "EXTENDED" IN AMENDMENT NO. 0006 WAS USED INCORRECTLY SINCE THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO MOVE BACK THE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS. NEVERTHELESS, THE AMENDMENT ON ITS FACE SPECIFICALLY ADVISED OFFERORS THAT THE NEW DATE FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS WAS "4: P.M. 70 NOV 04." NAVY HAS ADVISED THAT THE OTHER OFFERORS WHO SUBMITTED QUOTES WERE APPARENTLY NOT "MISLED" SINCE ALL OF THE OTHER OFFERS WERE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE SET BY AMENDMENT NO. 0006.

ASPR 3-505(C) PROVIDES THAT NO AWARD SHALL BE MADE ON CERTAIN AMENDED REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS "UNLESS SUCH AMENDMENT THERETO HAS BEEN ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS TO CONSIDER SUCH INFORMATION IN SUBMITTING OR MODIFYING THEIR PROPOSALS." IT HAS BEEN FOUND IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS IN ADVERTISED PROCUREMENTS THAT AN AMENDMENT WAS NOT ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT BIDDERS TO SUBMIT BIDS ON TIME AND THAT NO AWARD SHOULD BE MADE UNDER SUCH INVITATION. CF. 45 COMP. GEN. 651 (1966).

THE PERTINENT QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RFQ WERE ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT THE SUBMISSION OF OFFERS BY THE REVISED DEADLINE. AS INDICATED, AMENDMENTS 0005 AND 0006 WERE ISSUED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ELEVEN OUT OF TWELVE OFFERORS WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT OFFERS IN TIME TO MEET THE REVISED DEADLINE. SEVEN OF THESE OFFERORS SUBMITTED PROPOSALS FROM CALIFORNIA AND WERE THEREFORE LOCATED FARTHER FROM THE PROCURING ACTIVITY IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, THAN YOUR CONCERN LOCATED IN CLEVELAND, OHIO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK THE FACTS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMENDMENTS WERE ISSUED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT OFFERORS TO MEET THE REVISED DEADLINE.

IN ANY EVENT IT HAS BEEN THE POSITION OF THIS OFFICE THAT A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SEND A COPY OF AN INVITATION FOR BIDS OR AN AMENDMENT THERETO TO AN INTERESTED FIRM - WHERE ADEQUATE COMPETITION IS OTHERWISE OBTAINED - DOES NOT ORDINARILY REQUIRE EITHER A READVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF A BID SUBMITTED AFTER THE TIME FIXED FOR THE OPENING OF BIDS. SEE B-167367, OCTOBER 26, 1969, AND 40 COMP. GEN. 126 (1960). THE REASONING IN THOSE CASES WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE HERE.

YOUR PROPOSAL WAS POSTMARKED NOVEMBER 9, 1970, WHICH WAS FIVE DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING DATE AND YOUR PROPOSAL WAS NOT SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASPR 3-506(C), GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL PERSONNEL DETERMINED THAT YOUR PROPOSAL DID NOT PRESENT AN "IMPORTANT OR TECHNICAL BREAKTHROUGH" AND THAT YOUR PROPOSAL COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE RESTRICTING CONSIDERATION OF LATE PROPOSALS. PURSUANT TO OUR REVIEW WE FIND NO BASIS TO OBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO REJECT YOUR PROPOSAL. B-167651, OCTOBER 3, 1969.

FOR THESE REASONS YOUR PROTEST IS DENIED.