B-299241.2, Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc., March 30, 2007

B-299241.2 Mar 30, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. protests the rejection as late the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. HSHQDC-07-R-00009, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for agency-wide transportation services. The protester argues that the agency engaged in wrongful action that resulted in the late submission of the protester's proposal or, alternatively, that the government had receipt and control of the proposal prior to the submission deadline. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299241.2, Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc., March 30, 2007 Decision Matter of: Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. File: B-299241.2 Date: March 30, 2007 David J. Taylor, Esq., Spriggs & Hollingsworth, for the protester. Rose J. Anderson, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency's rejection of the protester's proposal as late is denied where the late receipt of the proposal was not caused by the agency and the government did not have receipt and control of the proposal at the government installation designated for receipt of proposals prior to the submission deadline. DECISION Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. protests the rejection as late the proposal it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. HSHQDC-07-R-00009, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for agency-wide transportation services. The protester argues that the agency engaged in wrongful action that resulted in the late submission of the protester's proposal or, alternatively, that the government had receipt and control of the proposal prior to the submission deadline. We deny the protest. Shirlington is an incumbent contractor performing a portion of the transportation services to be procured under this RFP. The protester was awarded its first contract with DHS for these services in April 2004 and the current contract in October 2005. The agency issued the subject RFP for Washington area shuttle bus and sedan services on November 20, 2006, instructing offerors that proposals were to be received by 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), December 12, and should be submitted to the following address: Frank Rumph, Contract Specialist OPO Headquarters Procurement Division 7th & D Street, SW Washington, DC20024 RFP at 38. A different address for delivery of proposals was listed on the Standard Form 1449, Box 15 of the RFP, as follows: Department of Homeland Security Office of Procurement Ops. (DO) 245 Murray Lane Building 410 WashingtonDC20528 RFP at 1. On December 8, the agency issued amendment 3 which, in part, included the agency's answers to questions raised by offerors. One question noted the two different delivery addresses listed in the RFP and sought clarification. The agency responded as follows: Change the delivery address @ page 38 to read: Department of Homeland Security Office of Procurement Operations, 245 Murray Lane , Building 410, WashingtonDC20528. ATTN Frank Rumph. RFP amend. 3, at 2. Amendment 3 also extended the deadline for submitting proposals to December 19 at 10 a.m. EST. The contract specialist states that on the morning that offers were due he received two telephone calls from prospective offerors requesting directions to the proposal delivery address of 245 Murray Lane , and that he told both callers that the delivery address was a building located on the Anacostia Naval Station. Also on that morning, the protester's chief operating officer (COO) took the protester's proposal to a –bid room— in the building at 7th and D Streets listed on page 38 of the original RFP. The protester states that this building houses the DHS Office of Procurement Operations headquarters as well as some offices of the General Services Administration. The protester also states that previously it had delivered its proposal to that address in connection with the procurement for one of its two prior contracts with DHS for the services here. According to the protester, its COO asked the person in the bid room if this was the correct place to submit the proposal, and her response was yes. The COO was given a signed receipt, with the correct solicitation number listed, stamped: –RECEIVED, 2006 DEC 19 A 9:46:20 GSA-NCR BID ROOM.— Protest, exh. C. The agency maintains that it was unaware that the protester had submitted a proposal under the RFP here until it was informed of the submission by the protester on January 9, 2007.