Environmental, Inc.; WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., B-294057; B-294057.2, July 29, 2004

Environmental, Inc.; WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., B-294057; B-294057.2, July 29, 2004 TITLE: Environmental, Inc.; WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., B-294057; B-294057.2, July 29, 2004 BNUMBER: B-294057; B-294057.2 DATE: July 29, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision A A Matter of: Environmental, Inc.; WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. A File: B-294057; B-294057.2 A Date: July 29, 2004 A Lorenzo F. Exposito, Esq., and Jeniffer De Jesus, Esq., Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy, for the protesters. Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that agency improperly rejected offers as late because lateness was due to amendment that rendered address for hand-carried offers ambiguous, is denied where solicitation clearly provided address for hand-carried offers and amendment cannot reasonably be read as revising delivery instructions. DECISION A On-Site Environmental, Inc. and WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. protest the rejection of their proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-HQ-04-10343, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fast environmental cleanup services for hazardous substances/wastes/contaminants/materials and petroleum products/oil, for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. On-Site and WRS contend that the late delivery of their offers was due to ambiguous solicitation instructions, and that their offers therefore should be considered. A We deny the protests. A The RFP, issued March 18, 2004, included addresses for submission of proposals. The first was under item 7 on SFA 33, labeled *ISSUED BY,* which included a parenthetical stating *(Hand Delivered/Overnight Commercial Carriers),* and the following address: A A A Environmental Protection Agency Bid and Proposal Room, Ronald Reagan Building, 6thA Floor (3802R) 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 The second was under item 8, labeled *ADDRESS OFFER TO (if other than item 7),* which included a parenthetical stating *(U.S. Mail Only),* and the following address: Environmental Protection Agency Bid and Proposal Room, Ariel Rios Building (3802R) 1200A Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 RFP at 1. The agency issued three amendments, all of which included item 6, which was labeled *ISSUED BY* and included the 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue address. RFP, amend. 1, at 1; amend. 2, at 1; amend. 3, at 1. The amendments did not include any parenthetical information under item 6, or any other information relating to the place of offer delivery. The closing time for receipt of proposals was 4:00 p.m. on AprilA 30. A On-Site*s proposal was to be delivered by a commercial overnight delivery service prior to 10:30 a.m. on April 30. It was addressed to the 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue address under item 8 of the RFP and under item 6 of the amendments. On-Site Protest at 4. The record shows that the commercial carrier unsuccessfully attempted delivery prior to 10:30 a.m. on Friday, April 30. Id. at 4-5. The protester*s and the commercial carrier*s representatives telephoned the contracting officer, who advised On-Site that it was using an incorrect address for delivery via commercial carrier. Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer*s Statement, at 4; AR, Tab F, Memorandum for Record, at 1. On-Site then rea**routed the delivery to EPA*s 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue address and the agency received On-Site*s proposal on Monday, May 3 at 9:29 a.m. Protest at 5; AR, Tab G, Memorandum for Record, Late Proposals, at 1. A WRS likewise sent its proposal via the same commercial carrier and addressed it to the 1200A Pennsylvania Avenue address. The commercial carrier unsuccessfully attempted delivery at approximately 6 a.m. on April 30. WRS Protest at 4. A representative of the commercial carrier notified WRS of the delivery problem and WRS arranged for an employee of a Washington D.C. law firm to pick up the proposal at the commercial carrier*s office and deliver it to EPA*s 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue address. Id. at 4-5. WRS*s proposal was received by the agency on April 30 at 4:25 p.m. AR, Tab G, Memorandum for Record, Late Proposals, at 1. By letter dated May 3, the agency notified On-Site and WRS that their proposals were received late and would not be considered for award. A On-Site and WRS contend that their proposals were received late due to a latent ambiguity in the RFP regarding the delivery address for hand-carried proposals.