Airrus Management Systems, LLC

B-416358 Aug 09, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Airrus Management Systems, LLC, of Saratoga Springs, Utah, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-18-R-3011 for roof repair services. Based on its four attempts to submit its proposal, the protester contends that the agency should have received and considered its proposal. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Airrus Management Systems, LLC File:  B-416358 Date:  August 9, 2018 David A. Rose, Esq., Rose Consulting, LLC, for the protester. Rachel E. Woods, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's proposal as late is denied where none of the protester's attempted submissions were received prior to the closing date and time for receipt of initial proposals; and dismissed where protester's allegation about an apparent ambiguity in the solicitation is untimely. DECISION Airrus Management Systems, LLC, of Saratoga Springs, Utah, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-18-R-3011 for roof repair services.  Based on its four attempts to submit its proposal, the protester contends that the agency should have received and considered its proposal. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on March 1, 2018, as a woman-owned small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for roof repair services at Tooele Army Depot in Tooele, Utah.  Agency Report (AR), Tab B, RFP, at 1.[1]  The solicitation required that proposals be submitted electronically to the contracting officer and the contract specialist, and provided their respective e-mail addresses.  Id. at 4.  An amendment issued on April 2 extended the closing date and time for submission of initial proposals to April 5 by 2:00 p.m., Central time.[2]  AR, Tab D, Amend. 0002, at 2. Airrus attempted to submit its proposal four times.  On April 3, Airrus first attempted to submit its proposal by e-mail with a "zip" file[3] attachment at 3:30 p.m., Mountain time (i.e., 4:30 p.m., Central time).  Protest, Exh. 2, Original Submission, at 1.  On April 5, approximately one hour before the closing time for receipt of proposals, Airrus contacted the contract specialist by e-mail, requesting confirmation that its proposal had been received.  AR, Tab F-1, E-mail from Airrus to Contract Specialist, at 1.  The contract specialist advised Airrus that the agency had not received a proposal from Airrus.  AR, Tab F-2, E-mail from Contract Specialist to Airrus, at 1. Next, Airrus states that it attempted to submit its proposal by e-mail with attachments uploaded to a third-party file transfer service, "Google Drive," at 12:19 p.m., Mountain time (i.e., 1:19 p.m., Central time), and then by e-mail with attachments using another file transfer service, "We Transfer," at 12:34 p.m., Mountain time (i.e., 1:34 p.m., Central time).  Protest, Exh. 4, Google Drive Proposal Submission, at 1-2; Protest, Exh. 5, We Transfer Proposal Submission, at 1-3.  Neither the contracting officer nor the contract specialist received these transmissions. Finally, also on April 5, Airrus attempted to submit its proposal by e-mail with portable document format (PDF) file attachments beginning at 1:02 p.m., Mountain time (i.e., 2:02 p.m., Central time).  This submission was received by the agency at 2:06 p.m., Central time.  Protest, Exh.