Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc.

B-274885 Jan 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly considered awardee's late hand-carried bid for award is denied where awardee's reasonable reliance on the incorrect address specified in the solicitation for the delivery of bids was the paramount cause of late receipt. The awardee submitted its bid to United Parcel Service (UPS) before bid opening and it does not appear that the awardee handled or otherwise had control over its bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was delivered to the agency on the day after bid opening. Palomar argues that the Navy was required to reject Weststar's bid as late. The IFB's cover page (Standard Form 1442) stated that bids were due at the place specified in Item 8 by 2 p.m. on August 16. View Decision Matter of: Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. File: B-274885 Date: January 10, 1997 Protest that agency improperly considered awardee's late hand-carried bid for award is denied where awardee's reasonable reliance on the incorrect address specified in the solicitation for the delivery of bids was the paramount cause of late receipt, and the awardee submitted its bid to United Parcel Service (UPS) before bid opening and it does not appear that the awardee handled or otherwise had control over its bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was delivered to the agency on the day after bid opening. Attorneys DECISION Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Weststar, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N68711-96-B-5048, issued by the Department of the Navy for repair of the runway and taxiway at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Yuma, Arizona. Palomar argues that the Navy was required to reject Weststar's bid as late. We deny the protest. The IFB's cover page (Standard Form 1442) stated that bids were due at the place specified in Item 8 by 2 p.m. on August 16, 1996. Item 8 indicated that bids were to be addressed to the issuing authority identified in Item 7 as follows: "Officer in Charge of Construction Building 731, MCAS Box 99129 Yuma AZ 85265-9129" The zip code set forth in Item 7, however, is incorrect; that zip code identifies Tempe, Arizona, as the destination, while the correct zip codes for MCAS Yuma are 85369 or 85365. The IFB's cover page advised offerors seeking additional information to contact Ms. R. Ruth at (520) 341-2663. At the bid opening on August 16, bids were received from Palomar and three other bidders. In addition, shortly before bid opening, the agency received a telephone modification sent by Weststar through Western Union, and subsequently confirmed by facsimile transmission and mailgram, asking the agency to "deduct $250,000 from base bid item 0001A and from total bid price." Weststar's original bid was not received by the agency until its delivery by United Parcel Service (UPS) at approximately 11:08 a.m. (according to UPS records) or 11:14 a.m. (according to the agency) on the following day. As modified, Weststar's bid was low. UPS shipping documents and tracking information indicate that Weststar furnished its bid to UPS on August 15 for promised delivery to MCAS Yuma by 10:30 a.m. on August 16. Weststar's bid was addressed to: "R. Ruth, Telephone (520) 341-2663 MCAS OICC Building 731 Yuma, AZ 85265-9129" As indicated above, the zip code used by Weststar, although the one specified on the cover sheet of the solicitation (and in Amendment No. 0001 to the solicitation) for receipt of bids, in fact identified the destination as Tempe and not MCAS Yuma. UPS tracking information and a report from UPS indicate that as a result of the incorrect zip code, Weststar's bid package was first sent to Tempe on August 16, was logged in there at 7:08 a.m. on August 16, and then was sent to Yuma via Phoenix on August 17, with delivery to MCAS made shortly after 11:00 a.m. on August 17. The Navy determined that Weststar's bid had been delivered to UPS in sufficient time to permit delivery to MCAS Yuma before the scheduled bid opening as specified in the solicitation and that the sole or paramount cause of the late delivery was the erroneous zip code furnished by the agency in the solicitation. In the absence of any evidence that Weststar had handled or otherwise had control over its bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was delivered to MCAS Yuma on the day after bid opening, the agency concluded that the bid could be considered for award. Upon learning of the resulting award to Weststar, Palomar filed this protest with our Office against acceptance of Weststar's bid, arguing that the bid instead should be rejected as late.