The Haskell Company, B-292756, November 19, 2003

B-292756 Nov 19, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably declined to reject as late a proposal received before the time 14:01 was displayed on the time/date stamp clock used by the agency for determining timeliness of proposal submissions. 2. Haskell contends that Gray's proposal should have been rejected as late. Was due by "14:00:00 local time" on May 1. Was due "on/about" July 2. Providing that "[t]he solicitation closing date for submission of Part 2 Proposals is 25 June 2003. Among the offerors to submit both part 1 and part 2 proposals were Haskell and Gray. Haskell alleges that Gray's proposal was received at the designated government office after 14:00 Pacific Time on June 25 and should therefore have been rejected as late. View Decision The Haskell Company, B-292756, November 19, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Haskell Company protests the award of a contract to James N. Gray Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62474-03-R-4020, issued by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) for infrastructure upgrade and construction of a new aircraft parts store, flight simulator facility, and squadron operations/aircraft maintenance unit facility at Travis Air Force Base. Haskell contends that Gray's proposal should have been rejected as late. We deny the protest. The RFP instructed offerors to submit their proposals in two parts; part 1, consisting of offerors' responses to technical factors 1 and 2 (past performance and technical qualifications), was due by "14:00:00 local time" on May 1, 2003, while part 2, consisting of offerors' responses to technical factors 3 and 4 (management approach and commitment to small business) and proposed prices, was due "on/about" July 2. RFP at 1, 11. Amendment No. 5, issued on May 7, revised the language pertaining to part 2 proposals, providing that "[t]he solicitation closing date for submission of Part 2 Proposals is 25 June 2003, 1400 hours (Pacific time)." RFP amend. 5, at 2. The agency received 12 part 1 proposals and nine part 2 proposals. Among the offerors to submit both part 1 and part 2 proposals were Haskell and Gray. The agency evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP and selected Gray's proposal for award. /1/ Upon receipt of notification of the award to Gray, Haskell requested a debriefing; after the debriefing, Haskell protested to our Office. Haskell alleges that Gray's proposal was received at the designated government office after 14:00 Pacific Time on June 25 and should therefore have been rejected as late. Haskell bases its allegation on the observations of its project manager, who was present at the office designated for receipt of proposals on June 25. The project manager relates that: After 14:00 Pacific Time, a representative from James N. Gray Company submitted a proposal in response to the Solicitation. I personally observed the James N. Gray Company representative submit the proposal after 14:00 Pacific Time. I observed that the James N. Gray Company proposal was submitted late by looking at my watch and the clock located in the room where the bids were received. According to both my watch and the clock located on the wall, the James N. Gray Company proposal was received by the Navy after 14:00 Pacific Time. Affidavit of Haskell's Project Manager, Aug. 25, 2003 at 1. /2/ The Navy responds that Gray's proposal package was received by the appropriate contracting official before the time 14:01 was displayed on the time/date stamp clock she was using for purposes of determining timeliness, and that, accordingly, the proposal was not late. In this connection, the NAVFAC management assistant tasked with receiving proposals recounts that on the day in question, the contracting officer furnished her with a time/date stamp containing a 3-1/2 inch wide digital clock display, which she placed on her desk and used continuously throughout the day to check the time and affix time/date stamps to proposal packages. Statement of Management Assistant, Sept. 29, 2003, at 1-2. The contracting officer relates that prior to furnishing the time/date stamp to the management assistant, she dialed the local telephone time service, noted the local time, and set the digital clock to that time. Statement of the Contracting Officer, Sept. 29, 2003, at 1. The management assistant describes the circumstances surrounding her receipt of Gray's proposal package as follows: One contractor GRAY, did enter the office at 1400 hrs. I had the proposal in my control before the turning of the time/date stamp turned 14:01. The Gentleman who delivered the proposal came through the office doors bleeding pretty bad, his nail had ripped from his finger, in route to our office.