Integrated Support Systems inc, B-283137.2, September 10, 1999

B-283137.2 Sep 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The RFP provided that for proposals that are hand-carried or sent by courier service "the Offeror assumes full responsibility for ensuring that the offer is received at the U.S. Offerors were also informed that the building was a "secure building" and all but uniformed couriers were required to deliver packages to the 15th Street entrance for the Office of Security/Courier Service Center. Was informed that this was not the correct entrance for delivery of proposals to the Courier Service Center. Which is marked "Courier Entrance. " but arrived after 3 p.m. /3/ An agency contract specialist was present in room 1874 from 2:30 to 3 p.m. ISSi's proposal was not delivered prior to the contract specialist leaving room 1874. View Decision Matter of: Integrated Support Systems inc File: B-283137.2 Date: September 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Integrated Support Systems inc (ISSi) protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-SAAA-9-00010, issued by the Department of Commerce for the acquisition of Commerce Information Technology Services. ISSi objects to Commerce's rejection of its proposal as late because the agency allegedly failed to inform ISSi of the correct location for hand-delivery of its proposal. We deny the protest. /1/ The RFP stated the time for receipt of proposals as March 26, 1999, at 3 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Agency Report, exh. A, Instructions to Prospective Offerors. The RFP provided that for proposals that are hand-carried or sent by courier service "the Offeror assumes full responsibility for ensuring that the offer is received at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW (Use 15th Street entrance), Office of Security/Courier Service Center/Room 1874, Washington, DC 20230 by 3:00 P.M. EST." RFP Sec. L.5. Offerors were also informed that the building was a "secure building" and all but uniformed couriers were required to deliver packages to the 15th Street entrance for the Office of Security/Courier Service Center. Id. The RFP incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-1, Intructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition (Oct 1997), which, among other things, provided that proposals received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers would generally be rejected. /2/ On March 26, ISSi's president attempted to hand-deliver ISSi's proposal. He states that he arrived at a 15th Street entrance to the Department of Commerce building at precisely 2:57 p.m., but was informed that this was not the correct entrance for delivery of proposals to the Courier Service Center. Agency Report, exh. D, Letter from the Protester to the Contracting Officer (June 3, 1999). The protester's president proceeded to the other 15th Street entrance, which is marked "Courier Entrance," but arrived after 3 p.m. /3/ An agency contract specialist was present in room 1874 from 2:30 to 3 p.m.; at 3 p.m. the contract specialist declared that time for receipt of proposals had ended and exited the room at about 3:01 p.m. ISSi's proposal was not delivered prior to the contract specialist leaving room 1874. Agency Report, Declaration of Contract Specialist, Para. 8. The agency rejected ISSi's proposal as late, and this protest followed. It is an offeror's responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time, and late delivery generally requires rejection of the proposal. FAR Sec. 15.208; The Staubach Co., B-276486, May 19, 1997, 97-1 CPD Para. 190 at 3. However, a hand-carried proposal that arrives late may be considered if improper government action was the paramount cause for the late submission, and where consideration of the proposal would not compromise the integrity of the competitive process. Caddell Constr. Co., Inc., B-280405, Aug. 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 50 at 6. Improper government action in this context is affirmative action that makes it impossible for the offeror to deliver the proposal on time. Id. Even in cases where the late receipt may have been caused, in part, by erroneous government action, a late proposal should not be considered if the offeror significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its responsibility to deliver a hand-carried proposal to the proper place by the proper time. Id.; Adirondack Constr. Corp., B-280015.2, Aug. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 55 at 6. There is no dispute here that ISSi's proposal was late. Instead, ISSi contends that the sole cause of the proposal's untimely receipt was the ambiguous RFP instructions as to where to hand-deliver proposals. Protest at 4-5; Comments at 4.