B-297853, The Castle Group, March 21, 2006

B-297853 Mar 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Castle Group, agent for Medex Tianjin Latex Group, protests the Agency for International Development's (USAID) rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. M-0AA-GH-06-063, for latex condoms. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297853, The Castle Group, March 21, 2006 Decision Matter of: The Castle Group File: B-297853 Date: March 21, 2006 Jason S. Schloss for the protester. Diane A. Perone, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly declined to accept protester's late proposal where there is no evidence that improper government action was cause of U.S. Postal Service's failure to make timely delivery. DECISION The Castle Group, agent for Medex Tianjin Latex Group, protests the Agency for International Development's (USAID) rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. M-0AA-GH-06-063, for latex condoms. We deny the protest. The RFP informed offerors to submit their proposals by the closing date and time--January 3, 2006, at 11:00 a.m.--to the following mailing address: –[Ms. Z], Contracting Officer, Office Of Acquisition And Assistance, M/OAA/GH, Rm. 7.09-086, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC20523-7900 .— RFP sect. L.9. The first page of the RFP (Standard Form 33), as well as the RFP's cover letter indicated that the first line of the address was to be –U.S. Agency for International Development.— The RFP also incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.215-1, which provides that late proposals generally will not be considered for award if they do not reach the designated government office by the time specified in the solicitation. Castle used the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) on-line Click-N-Ship program to prepare an Express Mail shipping label, and addressed its proposal as follows: –[Ms. Z], OFC OF ACQUISITION & ASSISTANCE, M/OAA/GH, RM 7 09-086, 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON DC 20004-3002.— Castle knew that it had not provided the precise address information from the RFP, but states that it was unable to do so because the Click-N-Ship program's field limitations and address verification system would not accommodate all the required information, and also automatically changed the zip code from –20523— (as entered by Castle) to –20004.— Typed below the shipping label was the RFP number, Castle's address, and the words –BID ON BEHALF OF MEDEX TIANJIN LATEX GROUP— as well as –Solicitation Due Date: January 3, 2006,— and –Time: 11:00 AM.— On December 28, 2005, Castle attempted to contact the contracting officer to discuss its address issues; it left her a voice mail message to call back, but she –was not told of the problem.— Initial Comments at 2. The contracting officer did not call back, and Castle opted to send the proposal package that same day using the Click-N-Ship label it had prepared. The package arrived at a USPS facility in Washington, D.C. on December 29, and delivery was attempted on December 30. The package was refused by an unidentified person or persons who wrote an –X— across the addressee information, the words –official 20460,— –Refused 12/30/05,— and the initials –CE,— and stamped the package at least four times using a –return to sender— stamp with –refused— marked as the reason. The USPS returned the unopened package to Castle on January 6, 2006, well after the closing date and time had passed. According to Castle, it was advised by the USPS in Washington, D.C. that –delivery was attempted at USAID . . . by a substitute USPS carrier—; –the package was refused by Mr. [B], the mailroom supervisor at USAID . . . located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue —; and the handwritten remarks and –CE— were made by USPS after the package was refused. Initial Comments at 2. Castle requested that the contracting officer allow it to resubmit the proposal and, when the contracting officer refused, Castle filed this protest. Castle asserts that, notwithstanding the discrepancies on its address label, its proposal package arrived at the proper address prior to the closing time and was improperly refused by the agency. In Castle's view, this constituted government mishandling and entitles it to have USAID consider its proposal. The agency maintains that it never received or refused Castle's proposal; the firm's failure to follow the address instructions prevented it from arriving in USAID's mailroom. An offer is late if it does not arrive at the office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Sencland CDC Enters., B-252796, B-252797, July 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 36 at 3.