B-292437, Sep 18, 2003
Shubhada, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, and the award of a contract to Titan Machine Products, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO560-02-R-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for lock release levers for .50 caliber M2 machine guns.
We deny the protest.
B-292437, Shubhada, Inc., September 18, 2003
Matter of: Shubhada, Inc.
Date: September 18, 2003
Bob Metgud for the protester.
Jonathan D. Brawn, Titan Machine Products, Inc., for the intervenor.
Robert L. Mercadante, Esq., and Marlene Surrena, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and Jerold D. Cohen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
Where an agency rejects an offerors submission as technically unacceptable for failing to include a technical proposal required by the solicitation, but the agency actually may have received the proposal and lost it, a protest of the agencys evaluation and award decision generally will not be sustained, absent a systemic failure in the agencys proposal-receipt process. Since the content of a lost proposal is known only to the protester, it would be inconsistent with maintaining a fair competitive system to allow the protester to establish the content of its proposal after the closing date has passed.
Shubhada, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable, and the award of a contract to Titan Machine Products, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO560-02-R-0336, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for lock release levers for .50 caliber M2 machine guns
We deny the protest.
The RFP, issued on September 17, 2002, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract. The RFP stated that contract award would be on a best value basis, with technical factors being significantly more important than price. The technical factors--past performance and technical ability--were of equal importance.
The solicitation required that proposals include detailed information related to each technical factor. For example, under the technical ability factor, the RFP required, in part, that proposals provide detailed documentation evidencing an offerors forging and machining capabilities for at least five similar and complex items. RFP at 25.
Proposals were due October 17. The agency received five proposals by that date, including submissions by Shubhada and Titan. The agency determined that four proposals, including Shubhadas, which was also the lowest-priced proposal, did not include any information for review under the technical factor and thus were technically unacceptable. The agency determined that Titans proposal was acceptable. The agency eliminated all but Titans proposal from the competitive range, conducted discussions with Titan and, on December 13, awarded a contract to that firm. Subsequently, Shubhada protested to our Office, essentially alleging that its proposal was technically acceptable and should have been selected for award.
The agency report on the protest states that Shubhadas proposal was technically unacceptable because it did not include the technical information required by the RFP. In response, Shubhada states that it had hand-delivered a proposal consisting of two large envelopes banded together, one of which contained a binder with all of the technical and past performance information required by the RFP. Comments at 2, Second Supplemental Comments at 1. Shubhada supports this statement with a copy of a receipt showing that a bid package was received by the agency prior to closing. Comments at 2, attach. 1, Receipt For Handcarried Offer.
Both parties related arguments largely are based on current recollections of events that occurred many months ago. For example, the agencys personnel recall that Shubhada submitted only one envelope. Supplemental Agency Submission, Affidavit of Bid Room Attendant (Aug. 18, 2003). The agency states that the envelope was not large enough to, and did not, contain a binder of past performance and technical information. Agency Supplemental Report at 2.
Also, on October 21, 4 days after closing, Shubhadas representative called the agency; the agencys contracts specialist returned his calls. Agency Report, Tab 9, Conversation Record (Oct. 22, 2002). The contracts specialist states that Shubhadas representative asked to submit technical data to attach to Shubhadas proposal, but she told him that the agency would get back to him with a decision as to whether the submission of additional information would be permitted. Supplemental Agency Report, encl. 1, Affidavit of Contracts Specialist, at 1. Shubhadas representative states that he only inquired whether the contracts specialist had received Shubhadas proposal and whether she needed any additional information; according to Shubhada, the contracts specialist stated that she had received everything and did not need additional information. Second Supplemental Comments (Aug. 22, 2003), at 2.
Finally, Shubhadas representative states that he called the contracts specialist almost every month following the October conversation, through May 2003, to inquire as to the status of the procurement, and that the contracts specialist stated each time that Shubhadas proposal was still under consideration. Shubhada states that at no time prior to it receiving the notice of award did the agency inform Shubhada either that the firms proposal was incomplete, or that an award had been made in December. Comments at 3; Second Supplemental Comments at 2. The contracts specialist states that at no time after the October conversation did she either discuss the status of Shubhadas offer with the firms representative, or advise the representative that Shubhadas proposal was still under evaluation. Supplemental Agency Report, encl. 1, Affidavit of Contracts Specialist, at 1-2.
This protest thus presents a significant factual dispute. We need not resolve the dispute, however, because even if the protesters proposal did include additional information, the agency does not have any record (or recollection) of receiving it--at best, the information must be considered to have been lost. As explained below, the circumstances here do not provide a basis to sustain the protest.
Agencies have a fundamental obligation to have procedures in place to receive submissions from competitors under a solicitation, to reasonably safeguard submissions received, and to fairly consider all submission received. As a practical matter, however, even with appropriate procedures in place, an agency may lose or misplace a submission, and such occasional loss--even if through agency negligence--generally does not entitle an aggrieved competitor to relief. American Material Handling, Inc., B-281556, Feb. 24, 1999, 99-1 CPD 46 at 3; Marine Hydraulics Intl, Inc., B-240034, Oct. 17, 1990, 90-2 CPD 308 at 3.
This arguably harsh result is justified by the unique circumstances arising in protests concerning lost information. The only means generally available to establish the content of lost information is for the protester to reconstruct that information. However, allowing an offeror to establish the content of its lost proposal after the closing date has passed would be inconsistent with maintaining a fair competitive system. Marine Hydraulics Intl, Inc., supra. Here, the only evidence of the content of the information that the protester may have submitted prior to closing is a copy of that information produced by Shubhada during this protest process. The record does not contain any pre-closing evidence of the content of Shubhadas technical proposal that the agency properly could evaluate. We therefore will not disturb the agencys rejection of Shubhadas incomplete proposal as technically unacceptable, the exclusion of Shubhadas proposal from the competitive range, and the award to Titan. See id. at 2-3.
Our Office has recognized limited exceptions to the rule that negligent loss of proposal information does not entitle the offeror to relief. The exception generally applies where the loss was not an isolated act of negligence, but rather arises out of a systematic failure in the agencys procedures that typically results in multiple or repetitive instances of lost information. See S.D.M. Supply, Inc., B-271492, June 26, 1996, 96-1 CPD 288 at 4. The exception does not apply here. There is no evidence that the agency, for example, lost the proposal information submitted by other offerors, or previously has lost proposal information.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
One proposal also included a cover letter. Another proposal did not offer a price.
 Many months separate the protest date and the agencys competitive range determination and award decision. In mid-November, DLA prepared letters advising Shubhada and three other offerors that their proposals were not in the competitive range and would not be considered for award. Agency Report, Tab 5, Letters. Shubhada states that it did not receive this letter. Protesters Response to Dismissal Request, at 1. After award, the agency did not prepare a letter notifying the unsuccessful offerors of the award until April 30, 2003. Agency Report, Tab 7, Notice of Award. As evidenced by the postmark on the envelope received by Shubhada, the agency did not mail the notice of award until May 29. Protest at 1, enclosure, at 2. Shubhada received the notice on June 4, and timely filed this protest in our Office on June 13 (Shubhada did not request a debriefing).
 The contracts specialist further states that, in general, she never responds to status calls in terms of the requesters proposal, but only identifies the status of the acquisition itself, such as, The acquisition is still under evaluation. Supplemental Agency Report, encl. 1, Affidavit of Contracts Specialist, at 2. We note that the contracts specialists statement does not clearly rule out any additional conversations with Shubhada on other matters, or suggest that the agency ever orally informed Shubhada that a contract had been awarded in December.
 Compare this to our decisions requiring the agency to consider a late submission if, among other things, it can be established that the offeror has not had a post-closing opportunity to alter the content of the submission. E.g., Tishman Constr. Corp., B-292097, May 29, 2003, 2003 CPD 94 at 3-4.
 Our Office independently has confirmed that the other offerors submitted incomplete proposals, ruling out the possibility that a systemic failure may have occurred here.