The Severson Group, LLC

B-414999 Sep 26, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Severson Group, of Carlsbad, California, protests the rejection of the firm's proposal as late by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-17-R-0004 for custodial services. Severson argues that its proposal was timely submitted because the agency's subsequent amendments to the solicitation, which extended the date and time for receipt of proposals were confusing. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  The Severson Group File:  B-414999 Date:  September 26, 2017 Robert Severson, The Severson Group, for the protester. Laura A. Larkin, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the rejection of proposal as late is denied where the record shows that the solicitation was unambiguous with respect to the date and time for receipt of proposals, and the protester's proposal was late. DECISION The Severson Group, of Carlsbad, California, protests the rejection of the firm's proposal as late by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-17-R-0004 for custodial services.  Severson argues that its proposal was timely submitted because the agency's subsequent amendments to the solicitation, which extended the date and time for receipt of proposals were confusing. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 30, 2017, sought proposals for custodial services with proposals due on June 30, 2017, at 12:00 p.m., local time, which here is Eastern Time (ET).  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at 1.  On June 26, 2017, the agency issued Amendment No. 0001, which, among other things, extended the due date and time for proposals to "10:00 am Eastern Standard Time on 07 July 2017."  AR, Tab 3, Amendment No. 0001, at 1.  The agency issued Amendment 0002 on June 29, 2017, and Amendment 0003 on July 5, 2017, which both stated, in pertinent part, "[t]he due date and time remains 10:00 am Eastern Standard Time on 07 July 2017."  AR, Tab 4, Amendment No. 0002, at 1; Tab 5, Amendment No. 0003, at 1. The RFP incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.215-1, which states, in pertinent part, "[o]fferors are responsible for submitting proposals . . . so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. . . .  Any proposal . . . received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is 'late' and will not be considered. . . ."  RFP at 136; FAR § 52.215-1. The protester submitted its proposal on July 7, 2017, at 10:08 a.m. ET.  AR, Tab 6, Rejection of Late Proposal, at 1.  In a memorandum dated July 19, the contracting officer informed Severson that the firm's proposal was received after the time specified in the solicitation, and as a result was to be held until after award and then retained with other unsuccessful offerors.  Id. This protest followed. DISCUSSION Severson argues that the RFP was "clearly confusing" because the amendments to the RFP only stated that the time for receipt of proposals was extended, when, in fact, "the time of delivery had changed from the original time of 12:00 pm to 10:00 am. . . ."  Protest at 2 (emphasis in original).  The protester asserts that its proposal was timely submitted "because the time-of-delivery had changed but was not clearly stated in Amendment (1)."[1]  Id.  We disagree.  It is an offeror's responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place by the proper time, and late delivery generally requires rejection of the proposal.  FAR § 15.208; Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc., B-299241.2, Mar. 30, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 68 at 3.  An offer that arrives late may only be considered if it is shown that the paramount reason for late receipt was improper government action, and where consideration of the proposal would not compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement process.  Sector One Security Solution, B-400728, Dec. 10, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 224 at 2-3. The record shows that Severson's proposal was delivered to the location specified in the RFP on July 7, at 10:08 a.m.