Tele-Consultants, Inc.

B-414135 Feb 27, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tele-Consultants, Inc. (TCI), of Alpharetta, Georgia, protests the rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3321, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for support services for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. TCI contends that its proposal was timely submitted and under the government's control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Tele-Consultants, Inc. File:  B-414135 Date:  February 27, 2017 James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal, PLLC, for the protester. David B. Mercier, Esq., and Jean-Paul A. Nasser, Esq., Naval Sea Systems Command, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s rejection of the protester’s proposal is denied where the proposal was not received at the specified location prior to the time set for receipt of proposals. DECISION Tele-Consultants, Inc. (TCI), of Alpharetta, Georgia, protests the rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00024-16-R-3321, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for support services for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center.  TCI contends that its proposal was timely submitted and under the government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 28, 2016, the Navy issued the RFP to small business holders of the SeaPort-e multiple award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract.  RFP, Amend. 1, at 3.[1]  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a task order on a best-value basis.  Id. at 3, 62.  The RFP required the electronic submission of proposals via the SeaPort-e portal[2] by the closing time of 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 8, 2016.  Id. at 1.  Offerors were required to comply with the solicitation’s instructions for uploading proposals and attachments through the portal.  Id. at 55. As relevant here, the solicitation required contract holders to comply with instructions for submitting a proposal in the SeaPort-e portal outlined in the SeaPort-e multiple award contract (SeaPort-e contract) and the SeaPort Vendor Portal User Guide (SeaPort guide).[3]  Id.; Legal Memorandum at 3.  Specifically, the SeaPort-e contract states that contractors will have access only to the contractor side of the portal.  AR, Exh. 2, Clause H.5 of SeaPort-e Multiple Award Contract, at 3.  The SeaPort-e contract also advises that an offeror’s representative, or “authorized user,” will be required to confirm his or her intention to engage in a legally binding electronic action.  Id.  In this regard, when a user intends to take an action that is legally binding (such as submitting a proposal), the portal displays a notice and requires the user to confirm the request before the system will complete the request.  Id.  Additionally, the SeaPort-e contract states: When the authorized user indicates that the proposal is ready for submission, the system prompts the user to confirm the intent to electronically sign and submit the proposal materials.  Entering an affirmative/confirmatory response to this prompt is an electronic signature on the proposal materials, and constitutes the electronic submission of a legally binding offer by the Contractor. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The SeaPort-e contract also states that once a legally binding proposal is submitted to the portal, the system stores a “locked down” copy of the information, which cannot be altered or modified in any way.  Id. at 3.  In other words, converting a draft proposal to a signed proposal bars any further alterations to the proposal.[4]  Contracting Officer (CO) Statement at 2.  In the event the portal is not functioning properly, offerors are directed to contact the CO prior to the closing time established in the solicitation.  Id. By the time set for closing, three final proposals were submitted through the portal. The protester’s proposal was not among them.  Legal Memorandum at 5.  Instead, the protester’s proposal remained in the draft proposal section of the portal, i.e., the protester did not engage the “Submit Signed Proposal” button before the closing time. The agency explains that its system server logs for portal activity show that on November 8, the closing date, the protester’s senior contract analyst and president attempted to engage the “Submit Signed Proposal” button two separate times, at 23 and 34 seconds after the 2:00 p.m.