Williams Building Company, Inc.

B-415317.3 Apr 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Williams Building Company, Inc., of West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, protests the rejection of the bid it submitted under invitation for bids (IFB) No. VA242-17-B-0713, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for construction services. Williams argues that the agency improperly rejected its bid as late. 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:  Williams Building Company, Inc. File:  B-415317.3 Date:  April 12, 2018 Joseph A. Camardo Jr., Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. Neil B. Connelly, Esq., Brown Gruttadaro Gaujean Prato Sastow PLLC, for the intervenor. David W. Altieri, Esq., Donald C. Mobly, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Bid that was submitted after the time established for the receipt of bids in the solicitation is late and may not be accepted where government mishandling was not the primary reason that the bid was submitted late. DECISION Williams Building Company, Inc., of West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, protests the rejection of the bid it submitted under invitation for bids (IFB) No. VA242-17-B-0713, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for construction services.  Williams argues that the agency improperly rejected its bid as late.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND As relevant to this protest, bid opening was scheduled for September 13, at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, IFB amend. 6 at 1.  Williams initially submitted its bid to the contracting officer at 8:30 a.m. on September 13.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  However, at approximately 9:00 a.m., the Williams’ representative asked if he could change Williams’ bid.  Id.  The contracting officer, believing that Williams intended to exchange one envelope for another, handed the representative the unopened envelope containing the bid.  Id.  The Williams’ representative opened the sealed envelope, wrote something down, and inserted a bid sheet.  Id.; Protest at 3-4.  Although the representative intended to remove the original bid sheet, he failed to do so.  Protest at 3-4.  The representative returned the bid package to the contracting officer at 9:02 a.m.  COS at 1.  At 9:03 a.m. the contracting officer read the four bids that had been submitted, including Williams’ bid.  Id.  Williams’ bid package contained two offer forms (standard form (SF) 1442):  one in the amount of $4,929,583; and a second one in the amount of $4,795,139, which was written next to a crossed out amount of “$4,7195.”  COS at 1-2; AR, Exh. 3, Williams’ Bid Package.  The contracting officer read the Williams’ bid as $4,929,583.  COS at 1- 2.  Nordstrom Contracting and Consulting Group submitted the second lowest bid of $5,385,000.  Id.  Following protests by Williams and then Nordstrom, the agency rejected Williams’ bid as late.[2]  Williams protests that decision. DISCUSSION Williams argues that its bid should be accepted because it is clear that its original bid was $4,795,139.  Protest at 5.  Specifically, according to Williams, the envelope in which its bid was submitted contained, in addition to the two SF 1442’s, a bid sheet on which Williams crossed out the initial quote $4,795,139 and hand wrote the amended quote $4,929,583.  Id.  The protester argues that when an attempted bid modification (its attempt to change the bid from $4,795,139 to $4,929,583) is invalid, the bidder is bound by its initial bid.  Id. at 6.  Thus, according to Williams, if its modified bid--$4,929,583--was late, the agency could accept its original bid--$4,795,139, that was submitted at 8:30 a.m. The agency argues that when the contracting officer returned the original sealed bid package to Williams, the agency relinquished control over the bid.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5.  The agency further argues that when Williams returned the bid package to the contracting officer after 9:00 a.m., Williams’ bid was late and properly rejected.  Id.  Finally, the agency states that there was no bid sheet in the envelope with Williams’ bid, but only the two SF 1442’s for $4,795,139 and $4,929,583.  MOL at 5.  Bidders are responsible for submitting bids, and any modifications or withdrawals, so as to reach the government office designated in the invitation for bid by the time specified in the IFB.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 14.304; IFB amend.