Matter of: Sencland CDC Enterprises File: B-252796; B-252797 Date: July 19, 1993

Matter of: Sencland CDC Enterprises File: B-252796; B-252797 Date: July 19, 1993

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Protest timeliness Apparent solicitation improprieties PROCUREMENT Sealed Bidding Bids Responsiveness Terms Deviation Protester's bids, which arrived at the bid opening room after bid opening, were properly rejected as late, where the bidder's commercial carrier hand-carried them to the agency mailroom, rather than to the bid depository for hand-carried bids in accordance with solicitation instructions, and where the protester misaddressed the bid package, giving the wrong room number for the bid depository, since these actions, not government mishandling, reasonably appear to have been the cause of the late receipt at the bid opening.

Attorneys

DECISION Sencland CDC Enterprises protests the rejection of its bids as late under invitation for bids (IFB) Nos. DU204-B-92-0034 and -0035, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Atlanta Regional Office, for insurance endorsement and mortgage credit technical review services, respectively.

We deny the protests.

Both IFBs were issued on January 15, 1993. The IFBs required hand-carried sealed bids to be delivered to the bid depository located in:

"Department of Housing and Urban Dev. 75 Spring Street, Room 652 Reg. Cont. Div. Atlanta, Georgia 30303"

Bid opening for both IFBs was 2 p.m. on February 18, 1993. The Sencland bids were sent by United States Parcel Service's (UPS) Next Day Air Service on February 17, 1993. The UPS envelope contained both bids. The mailing label identified the correct street address, solicitation numbers, and bid opening date and time. However, the label identified "Room 625" as the HUD bid depository instead of "Room 652" designated in the solicitation instructions.

Sencland has furnished documents from UPS, including the UPS driver's log which shows that a HUD mailroom clerk signed for the bid package containing Sencland's two bids at 9:14 a.m., on February 18, 1993. UPS drivers use an automatic recording machine which records signatures and the machine then locks in the time and date. UPS has no delivery receipt signed by the mailroom clerk which shows date and time of delivery.

The record also shows that HUD's mailroom staff make entries in the
mailroom log in the order of receipt of packages from commercial carriers.
Although the time of receipt is not entered on the log, the agency has
copies of delivery receipts of another carrier, Airborne Express, which
show delivery of a package at 11:57 a.m. which was entered on the log
before the Sencland bid package. The record further shows that the
procurement assistant went to the mailroom between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30
a.m. on February 18 to advise mailroom personnel of the bid opening at
2:00 p.m. She checked for any bids. Nine bids were logged in at the
central location in the mailroom where packages from commercial carriers
are placed. These nine packages were then delivered to the contract
specialist. She also checked the mailroom at 1:30 p.m.; no other bids were
found at that time. According to the agency, a mail clerk received four
packages between 2:10 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. The clerk logged in these
packages and delivered them to the contract specialist. According to the
mailroom log, Sencland's package was one of these packages. The Sencland
bid package was stamped and received by the contracting officer at 2:30
p.m. and received in the bid room shortly thereafter. The contracting
officer subsequently rejected the bid as late.

Sencland argues that UPS' records establish that its bid package was
received at 9:14 a.m., in sufficient time for the mailroom to deliver
timely the package to the bid opening room. Sencland contends that the
late receipt of its bids by the bid opening official was due solely to
government mishandling after receipt by the agency.

The agency argues that Sencland's bids were received late due to late
delivery by UPS. It contends that the only acceptable evidence of receipt
at the agency is the time/date stamp or other documentary evidence
maintained by the agency, and thus, the UPS records do not constitute
acceptable evidence. The agency asserts that its log and the time/date
stamp establish that the bid package was not delivered until after 2:00
p.m. It also contends that Sencland must bear the responsibility for the
late receipt of its bids at the bid opening room because the commercial
carrier did not follow the solicitation instructions, and hand-delivered
the bids to the mailroom, instead of the bid depository. The agency
further asserts that appropriate procedures were used to ensure timely
receipt at the bid opening room of bids delivered to the mailroom, and
that Sencland's bid package was not in the mailroom both times the
procurement assistant checked prior to bid opening.

We conclude that Sencland's bids were properly rejected. An offer is late
if it does not arrive at the office designated in the solicitation by the
time specified in the solicitation. Futura Sys., Inc., B-241069, Sept. 13,
1990, 90-2 CPD Para. 208. An offer delivered to an agency by UPS or other
commercial carriers is considered to be hand-carried and, if it arrives
late, can only be considered if it is shown that the paramount reason for
late receipt was some improper government action. Bionics Orthotics and
Prosthetics, B-234823, Mar. 28, 1989, 89-1 CPD Para. 322. A late bid or
proposal cannot be considered if the offeror or its agent significantly
contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling the
responsibility to ensure delivery to the proper place by the proper time.
See Seer Publishing, Inc., B-237359, Feb. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 181.

We think Sencland and its agent significantly contributed to the late
receipt of Sencland's bids at the bid opening room. The IFBs clearly
required that hand-carried bids be submitted to room 652, not the
mailroom. Further, Sencland incorrectly identified the bid depository room
as "625" on the UPS package. Thus, the package was misaddressed. Even
accepting Sencland's assertion that UPS delivered the package to the
mailroom at 9:14 a.m.,[1] the mailroom was not the correct location for
delivery of hand-carried bids. The misaddressing of the package could
reasonably explain why the package did not arrive at the bid opening room
timely. The procurement assistant did not begin checking on deliveries
until after 10:00. By then the mailroom may have routed the package to the
wrong room. Since Sencland's agent delivered the package to the mailroom
in contravention of the IFB instructions which required that hand-carried
bids be delivered to the room designated in the IFB, and Sencland
erroneously inserted the wrong room on the mailing label, we think the
protester contributed to the late delivery of its bids. See Carolina
Archaeological Servs., B-224818, Dec. 9, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 662; Queen
City, Inc., B-223515, Sept. 23, 1986, 86-2 CPD Para. 337; Olympia USA,
Inc., B-215139, May 21, 1984, 84-1 CPD Para. 535. Consequently, the bids
were properly rejected as late.

1. We do not reach the issue of the acceptability of the UPS documentation of delivery as evidence of 9:14 a.m. receipt. Generally, the only acceptable evidence of receipt at the government installation is the time/date stamp on the bid wrapper or other documentary evidence of receipt maintained by the government installation. See Qualimetics, Inc., B-213162, Mar. 20, 1984, 84-1 CPD Para. 332. Here, the wrapper on the package shows a time/date stamp of 2:30 p.m. This represents time of receipt at the bid opening room. While Sencland argues based on UPS records that its package arrived at 9:14, UPS did not obtain a signed delivery receipt with time and date. Here, the mail/clerk signed a recording machine. The machine locks in the time and date. Based on our decision, we need not address the evidentiary value of UPS' records.