Richen Management, LLC (NDAL-2020-01)

B-419253 Jan 12, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Richen Management, LLC, a small company of Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NDAL-2020-01 for janitorial services. The protester contends that, although its proposal was received late, the agency should have nevertheless considered the proposal for award. We deny the protest. View Decision   Decision Matter of:  Richen Management, LLC File:  B-419253 Date:  January 12, 2021 Richard McCue, Richen Management, LLC, for the protester. Michael K. Greene, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to consider firm’s proposal is denied where the protester cannot demonstrate that the agency received protester’s proposal prior to the established due date for receipt of proposals.  DECISION Richen Management, LLC, a small company of Dover-Foxcroft, Maine, protests the rejection of its proposal by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. NDAL-2020-01 for janitorial services.  The protester contends that, although its proposal was received late, the agency should have nevertheless considered the proposal for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 16, 2020, the AOUSC publicly synopsized the RFP on the beta.SAM.gov website, establishing a due date for proposals of July 10.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Beta‑SAM Announcements at 1; Tab 3, RFP.  Prior to the due date, the protester contacted the contracting officer by telephone, inquiring as to the proposal submission requirements.  AR, Tab 12, Agency-Level Protest at 1.  During the telephone conversation, the agency instructed the protester to “email in the proposal before the due date and time and then to mail the proposal there[]after.”  Id.  On July 17, the contracting officer extended the proposal due date to July 31 by sending a blind carbon copy (Bcc) email to all known offerors that had either expressed an interest in the procurement, or previously submitted an offer.[1]  AR, Tab 5, Agency Bcc Email (July 17, 2020).  On July 31, the agency received 11 proposals, all of which were submitted via e-mail.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2.  The agency states that Richen’s proposal was not among those received on July 31.  Id.  Rather, the agency states that it received Richen’s proposal on August 7, via U.S. mail.  AR, Tab 9, Richen’s Proposal.  On that same day, i.e., August 7, the agency awarded the contract to another offeror and provided notification to unsuccessful offerors, as well as offerors that had expressed an interest in the procurement.  AR, Tab 10, Notice of Award and Richen Debriefing.  The protester responded to the agency’s notice, claiming that it had emailed its proposal on July 31, at 2:34 p.m. and sought reconsideration of the matter by the agency.[2]  AR, Tab 11, Post-Debriefing Email Exchange at 1.  The contracting officer requested a copy of Richen’s July 31 proposal, and stated that she had checked her email inbox, as well as her “spam” and “junk” folders, and found no evidence of an email from Richen on July 31.  AR, Tab 11, Post-Debriefing Email Exchange at 3.  On August 12, the agency informed Richen that its proposal was determined to be untimely, and would not be considered.  COS at 2.  On August 21, Richen filed an agency-level protest.  AR, Tab 12, Agency-Level Protest.  On August 26, the agency provided the results of an email “message trace” search it performed that found no evidence of the contracting officer having received any email proposal from Richen; this search used the email address of the contracting officer and the dates that the protester allegedly sent emails to the contracting officer.[3]  AR, Tab 13, Emails Discussing Trace Report; Tab 14, Email Trace Report Spreadsheet; Tab 15, Email Trace Report.  The agency denied Richen’s agency-level protest on September 25.  AR, Tab 16, Denial of Agency-Level Protest.  This protest to our Office followed. DISCUSSION Richen challenges the rejection of its proposal, asserting that even though its proposal was received late, it should still be considered for award as it was received via mail “within a reasonable time after the due date.”  Comments at 2.  For the reasons discussed below, we deny the protest.[4]  It is an offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.208; SigNet Technologies, Inc., B‑417435, July 3, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 247 at 4.  We have found an agency’s rejection of a proposal is reasonable where, notwithstanding a protester’s claim that it emailed its proposal to ...