Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., B-280984, December 16, 1998

B-280984 Dec 16, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Proposal properly was rejected as late where it was received at the designated location 50 minutes after the closing time. Evidence does not support protester's contention that it was timely delivered to the installation and then conveyed to the contracting officer after the closing time due to government mishandling. Hand-carried proposals were to be submitted by 11 a.m. on August 24. VEI's proposal was not received in the Plan Room until approximately 11:50 a.m. on August 24. VEI maintains that its proposal was delivered by Federal Express to the agency mailroom at 10:05 a.m. Which should have allowed adequate time for the proposal to be conveyed by agency personnel to the Plan Room by 11 a.m. View Decision Matter of: Valenzuela Engineering, Inc. File: B-280984 Date: December 16, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Valenzuela Engineering, Inc. (VEI) protests the rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA05-98-R-0044, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for operation and maintenance of groundwater treatment systems at Tooele Army Depot, Utah, and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for preventive maintenance, calibration, servicing, corrective repairs, sampling and analysis, and engineering services for the groundwater treatment systems at the depots. RFP Sec. B, at B-1. Hand-carried proposals were to be submitted by 11 a.m. on August 24, 1998 to the Plan Room, First Floor of the Army facility at 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California. RFP Sec. L.3, at L-2. VEI's proposal was not received in the Plan Room until approximately 11:50 a.m. on August 24. The contracting officer thus rejected it as late. VEI maintains that its proposal was delivered by Federal Express to the agency mailroom at 10:05 a.m., which should have allowed adequate time for the proposal to be conveyed by agency personnel to the Plan Room by 11 a.m. VEI concludes that the late receipt of its proposal must have resulted from government mishandling, and that its proposal should be considered timely. A late offer hand-carried by Federal Express or another commercial carrier may be considered only if it is shown that government mishandling, after timely receipt at the government installation, was the paramount cause of the late receipt. Creighton & Creighton, Inc., B-227511, July 2, 1987, 87-2 CPD Para. 11 at 2. It follows that there can be no question of wrongful government action in delivering an offer to the designated location unless timely receipt at the installation first is established. J.C.N. Constr. Co., Inc., B-270068, B-270068.2, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 42 at 3. VEI has not established that its proposal was delivered to the installation prior to the 11 a.m. closing time. The agency reports that: (1) VEI's proposal was delivered by a Federal Express van which arrived at its loading dock at approximately 11:28 a.m.; (2) following scanning by security guards, the proposal was handed over to agency mailroom personnel at 11:50 a.m.; (3) at that time the time (11:50 a.m.) and date, as well as the initials of the mailroom supervisor, were handwritten on the proposal and it was delivered to the Plan Room. The contract specialist states she had left the room by that time, but that, after receiving a telephone call at noon announcing the receipt of VEI's proposal, she went to the room and noted, based on the time/date inscription, that the proposal was late. The agency has submitted a copy of the proposal cover with the annotated time, date, and initials of the supervisor, as well as supporting statements from the personnel involved, /1/ and a security videotape which appears to support the time of receipt (the images are blurry, but the tape shows what appears to be a Federal Express truck arriving at 11:28). VEI has submitted as the sole evidence in support of its position Federal Express records stating that the proposal was delivered at 10:05 a.m. on August 24, and an affadavit supporting the authenticity of those records. However, VEI has not provided, and the record does not contain, any independent evidence corroborating the Federal Express records or casting doubt on the agency's records showing late receipt. /2/ In this regard, commercial carrier records may be considered in determining the time of delivery to a government installation only to corroborate relevant evidence, such as the agency time/date stamp, other documentary evidence in the possession of the agency, or statements by government personnel. J.C.N. Constr. Co., Inc., supra. Commercial carrier records, standing alone, may not serve to establish the time of delivery to the agency, since they are not evidence of receipt maintained or confirmed by the agency. Id.; Hausted, Inc., B-257087, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD Para. 49 at 3-4.