Guam Shipyard, B-294287, September 16, 2004

B-294287 Sep 16, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guam Shipyard protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N62404-04-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the replacement of a non-skid surface on a portion of the decks of the USS Frank Cable. The protester contends that the RFQ improperly fails to require that vendors have in place either a Master Ship Repair Agreement or an Agreement for Boat Repair. We dismiss the protest as untimely. View Decision B-294287, Guam Shipyard, September 16, 2004 Decision Matter of: Guam Shipyard File: B-294287 Date: September 16, 2004 David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for the protester. George N. Brezna, Esq., and David W. Beale, Esq., Military Sealift Command, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging solicitation impropriety is dismissed as untimely where protest was submitted to GAO on a federal holiday and thus is not considered filed until opening of business on the following business day, by which point the time set for receipt of quotations had passed. DECISION Guam Shipyard protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. N62404-04-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift Command, for the replacement of a non-skid surface on a portion of the decks of the USS Frank Cable. The protester contends that the RFQ improperly fails to require that vendors have in place either a Master Ship Repair Agreement or an Agreement for Boat Repair. We dismiss the protest as untimely. The RFQ, as amended, set a quotation due date of July 6, 2004, 4:30 p.m., Far East time. [1] Guam Shipyard transmitted a facsimile copy of its protest to our Office at 2:42 p.m., eastern time, on July 5, a federal holiday, and furnished an additional copy by e-mail at 3:22 the same afternoon. Because the protest was transmitted to our Office at a time the Office was not open for business, it was not time/date stamped until the opening of business on the following business day, i.e. , 8:30 a.m. on July 6. The agency argues that we should dismiss Guam Shipyard's protest as untimely because it was not filed prior to the time set for receipt of quotations, as required by our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. 21.2(a)(1) (2004). The agency contends in this connection that our Office will consider a protest filed when time/date stamped. Here, due to the difference in time zone between the Far East and Washington, D.C. (the Far East zone being 15 hours ahead, according to the agency), it was already 7 hours after the specified closing time of 4:30 p.m., Far East time, when the protest was time/date stamped by our Office at 8:30 a.m., eastern time. The protester argues in response that our Regulations provide at 4 C.F.R. 21.0(g) that "[a] document is filed on a particular day when it is received by GAO by 5:30 p.m., eastern time, on that day," and that its protest was received (and acknowledged as received by our Office) no later than 3:22 p.m. on July 5. This case presents two related questions pertaining to timeliness. The first is whether a time/date stamp is determinative as to the timeliness of a protest filing where other evidence clearly establishes the time that the protest arrived at our Office. The answer to this question is no. While we rely upon our time/date stamp to determine the timeliness of protest filings with our Office where other evidence clearly establishing the time that the protest arrived is absent, Peacock, Myers & Adams , B-279327, Mar. 24, 1998, 98-1 CPD 94 at 2, we will not rely upon the stamp where other acceptable evidence of earlier receipt is available, as was the case here. Our fax machine printed the time and date of receipt on each page of the protest as it was received, and these captions establish that all 11 pages of the protest were received at 2:42 p.m. on July 5. In addition, there is evidence (in the form of an e-mail message confirming receipt of the protest that was automatically generated by our computer system at 3:22 p.m. on July 5) that Guam Shipyard sent an e-mail copy of its protest to our Office prior to the time set for receipt of quotations. We turn then to our second question, which is whether we should consider a protest transmitted to our Office by e-mail or fax outside of business hours as filed at the time it enters our computer system (in the case of e-mail) or is received by our fax machine (in the case of a fax) or whether we should consider it as filed as of the opening of business on the following business day. We think that the answer is the latter.