States Roofing Corporation, B-286052, November 8, 2000

B-286052 Nov 08, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Agency properly rejected protester's proposal as late where preponderance of evidence shows that the proposal was not under government control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals because the protester did not arrive at the place designated for receipt of proposals until after the closing time had passed. SRC contends that its proposal was received by the government prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. BACKGROUND The RFP provided that sealed offers were due at "1CONS/LGCC. Are as follows. Which is located beside the entrance door and in front of Suite 100. SRC's proposal was not in the box at this time. While the chief and the contracting officer were on the front porch. View Decision Matter of: States Roofing Corporation File: B-286052 Date: November 8, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION States Roofing Corporation (SRC) protests the rejection of its late proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. F-44600-00-R-0028, issued by the Department of the Air Force for roofing repair services. SRC contends that its proposal was received by the government prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided that sealed offers were due at "1CONS/LGCC, 74 Nealy Ave., Suite 100," by 4 p.m. local time on July 31, 2000, and that "ALL HAND CARRIED OFFERS MUST BE PLACED IN THE BID DEPOSITORY AT 74 NEALY AVE., LANGLEY AFB, VA." RFP at 1. The facts, according to the agency, are as follows. On July 31, approximately 10 minutes before the 4 p.m. closing time, the Infrastructure Flight Chief at Langley (hereinafter "chief") and the contracting officer for this procurement retrieved proposals from the bid box, which is located beside the entrance door and in front of Suite 100. Affidavits of Contracting Officer, Aug. 11, 2000, and Chief, Sept. 1, 2000. SRC's proposal was not in the box at this time. The contracting officer and the chief then went out on the front porch of the building to await delivery of a proposal from another offeror. While the chief and the contracting officer were on the front porch, they received another proposal, but did not see SRC's representative enter the building or arrive in the parking lot in front of the building. Affidavits of Chief and Contracting Officer. At 4 p.m., according to the chief's watch, they came back inside, accounted for the proposals received up to that point, and then stamped a sheet of paper in the time-stamp machine located in Suite 100 to verify that the closing time had passed. /1/ Id. The time stamp read: "00 JUL 31 PM 4:01." Agency Report (AR), Tab 6a. Shortly after this, they walked upstairs to begin opening the proposals. Affidavit of Chief. At this time, the receptionist, whose desk is in Suite 100, was standing in the doorway of the office next door, from where she could see the front door (the only entrance to the building), the bid box, and the porch. Affidavit of Receptionist, Aug. 15, 2000. Before entering the office next door, she saw the chief open the bid box before going upstairs. She did not see SRC's representative enter the building during this time. Id. Throughout this time, the 14-year old daughter of the receptionist (hereinafter "daughter") was seated alone in Suite 100 and observed the chief and the contracting officer come downstairs, exit to the porch, receive proposals, return to Suite 100, and time-stamp a sheet of paper. Affidavit of Daughter, Aug. 15, 2000. According to the daughter's affidavit, a few minutes after the chief and the contracting officer returned upstairs, a man (the representative of the protester) entered the office and instructed her to "stamp 2 packages hastily," one of which was SRC's proposal. /2/ Although she attempted to tell him that she did not work in the contracting office, he cut her off and "rush[ed]" her to time-stamp the packages. She attempted to do so, but could not fit them into the time-stamp machine because they were too thick. The protester then instructed her to write "3:59" on the packages and to sign her name. She complied and then, accompanied by the protester, went next door to the office where the receptionist (her mother) was. Upon hearing what happened, the receptionist informed SRC's representative that his proposal was late and immediately returned to Suite 100 and time-stamped a sheet of paper. Affidavits of Receptionist and Daughter. The time stamp on this sheet read: "00 JUL 31 PM 4:05." AR tab 6b. The receptionist then turned the matter over to the chief and the contracting officer, who also informed the protester that the proposal was late and showed him the paper time-stamped "4:01." Affidavits of Chief and Contracting Officer. The protester has presented a different account of the facts.