AABLE Tank Services, Inc.

B-273010 Nov 12, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Solicitation provided that bids were due at Savanna. Where the bid was opened at 2 p.m. Acceptance of the bid was proper. Since government misdirection of the bid to Letterkenny was the sole cause of the bid's nonreceipt at Savanna. AABLE argues that ECI's bid should be rejected because it was not delivered to the address specified in the solicitation. The IFB's cover page (Standard Form 1442) indicated that the solicitation was "issued by" LEAD (item 7). That bids were due. The cover page was mistaken in that LEAD normally both issues solicitations and holds bid openings for Savanna procurements expected to exceed $25. 000 (Savanna is a depot activity under LEAD). Vendors thus should have been advised to send bids to LEAD by 2 p.m. View Decision Matter of: AABLE Tank Services, Inc. File: B-273010 Date: November 12, 1996 Solicitation provided that bids were due at Savanna, Illinois by 2 p.m. local time, but low bidder sent its bid to Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania--which had issued the solicitation--at the direction of the Letterkenny contract specialist (identified in the solicitation as the person to contact for further information), where the bid was opened at 2 p.m. Letterkenny time (1 hour ahead of Savanna time). Acceptance of the bid was proper, since government misdirection of the bid to Letterkenny was the sole cause of the bid's nonreceipt at Savanna, and acceptance would not compromise the integrity of the competitive system. Attorneys DECISION AABLE Tank Services, Inc. protests the proposed award of a contract to Environmental Contractors of Illinois, Inc. (ECI) under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAC67-96-B-0027 issued by the Department of the Army's Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, for the removal and installation of underground fuel storage tanks at the Savanna Army Depot Activity in Savanna, Illinois. AABLE argues that ECI's bid should be rejected because it was not delivered to the address specified in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The IFB's cover page (Standard Form 1442) indicated that the solicitation was "issued by" LEAD (item 7); that a vendor should "address offer to" Savanna (item 8); and that bids were due, for public opening, "at the place specified in item 8" by 2 p.m. "local time" on Thursday June 20, 1996 (item 13). According to the Army, the cover page was mistaken in that LEAD normally both issues solicitations and holds bid openings for Savanna procurements expected to exceed $25,000 (Savanna is a depot activity under LEAD); vendors thus should have been advised to send bids to LEAD by 2 p.m. The contract specialist, located at LEAD and unaware of the IFB error, advised a number of prospective bidders who called for information to send their bids to LEAD, in keeping with normal procedures. Savanna received six bids on June 20 shortly before noon Central Daylight Time (CDT), which is local Savanna time. The bids had been delivered by commercial carriers, and were forwarded unopened by a Savanna employee to the contracting officer's representative (COR) at Savanna who was to be responsible for the project after award. Meanwhile, the LEAD contract specialist, assuming that bid opening was 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)--the local LEAD time--accepted and opened two bids in the presence of another LEAD contract specialist. ECI's bid, which had arrived at LEAD via UPS 4 hours early, was the lower of the two opened, at $104,100. The Savanna COR, upon noting the six bids at his desk, called the LEAD contract specialist at 1:15 p.m. CDT, or 2:15 p.m. LEAD time--15 minutes after the two LEAD bids had been opened--at which time the IFB error finally was noted. Because Savanna bids normally are opened at LEAD, the COR sent the six unopened bids to LEAD the next morning (Friday June 21) via certified priority mail, and they arrived and were opened on June 24. AABLE submitted the lowest of the Savanna bids, $127,530, which was second low overall. AABLE protests that as the low bidder based on the bids sent to the proper address as designated in the solicitation--Savanna--AABLE is entitled to the contract award. ECI, in commenting on AABLE's protest, states that after receiving the solicitation and noting the different addresses in items 7 and 8 of the cover sheet it called the LEAD contract specialist, whom the IFB identified as the source for further information, in order to verify where the bid was to be mailed. ECI asserts that it was told to send the bid to LEAD, and argues that award to ECI thus is proper as ECI submitted the lowest of all bids received. The Army responds to AABLE's protest as follows: ". . . all eight bids submitted in response to the solicitation were received prior to [2:00 p.m.] EDT at LEAD and [1:00 p.m.] CDT at Savanna, so none can be considered late no matter at which location they were received.