B-156505, MAY 24, 1965

B-156505: May 24, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

RICHARD CROYLE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 1. AFTER INITIAL TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED AND EVALUATED UNDER THE FIRST STEP. ALL PROPONENTS WERE RESOLICITED IN WRITING TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY NO LATER THAN MARCH 15. WAS TO APPLY TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REQUESTED. THAT BY NORMAL MAIL DELIVERY IT SHOULD HAVE ARRIVED MY MARCH 13. FROM THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE INFORMING IT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS NOT RECEIVED ON TIME AND THAT IT WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE CONSIDERED. YOU SUGGEST THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE INFORMATION WAS SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE DELAY MUST HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF MISHANDLING BY NAVY PERSONNEL. THE USE OF THE LATE PROPOSAL CLAUSE IN THE RESOLICITATION IS AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2-503.1 (E) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION.

B-156505, MAY 24, 1965

TO MR. RICHARD CROYLE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 1965, PROTESTING THE REFUSAL OF THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ADDITIONAL DATA REQUESTED TO BE FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMITTED UNDER THE FIRST STEP OF A TWO-STEP PROCUREMENT COVERED BY INVITATION IFB600-317-65.

AFTER INITIAL TECHNICAL PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED AND EVALUATED UNDER THE FIRST STEP, ALL PROPONENTS WERE RESOLICITED IN WRITING TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY NO LATER THAN MARCH 15, 1965. THE LETTER REQUESTING THE INFORMATION STATED THAT THE LATE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS CLAUSE, JULY 1964 EDITION, INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS, WAS TO APPLY TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REQUESTED.

YOU STATE THAT YOUR COMPANY MAILED THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY FIRST- CLASS MAIL ON MARCH 12, 1965, AND THAT BY NORMAL MAIL DELIVERY IT SHOULD HAVE ARRIVED MY MARCH 13, 1965. YOU INDICATE THAT YOUR COMPANY RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AT THE TIME OF MAILING. HOWEVER, YOU STATE THAT YOUR COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED A LETTER DATED MARCH 18, 1965, FROM THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE INFORMING IT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS NOT RECEIVED ON TIME AND THAT IT WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE CONSIDERED.

AS A RESULT, YOU PROTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE USE OF THE LATE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CLAUSE BY THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IN ADDITION, YOU SUGGEST THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE INFORMATION WAS SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE DELAY MUST HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF MISHANDLING BY NAVY PERSONNEL.

THE USE OF THE LATE PROPOSAL CLAUSE IN THE RESOLICITATION IS AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2-503.1 (E) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. THE INCLUSION OF THE CLAUSE BY THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE IN THE IMMEDIATE RESOLICITATION WAS THEREFORE PROPER.

ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE LATE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS CLAUSE IS THAT A PROPOSAL RECEIVED AT THE OFFICE DESIGNATED IN THE REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT THEREOF BE SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL OR BY CERTIFIED MAIL FOR WHICH AN OFFICIAL, DATED POST OFFICE STAMP ON THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL WAS OBTAINED. FAILURE TO UTILIZE EITHER REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL IS FATAL TO CONSIDERATION OF A LATE RECEIVED BID. B 153238, FEBRUARY 13, 1964; B- 153422, FEBRUARY 11, 1964; B-152913, FEBRUARY 6, 1964; B-152858, JANUARY 28, 1964; B-152962, JANUARY 21, 1964; B-151607, JUNE 28, 1963; B-150894, MAY 31, 1963; B-151138, MAY 24, 1963; B-151181, MAY 16, 1963; AND B- 151366, MAY 9, 1963. POSTING A LATE BID UNDER A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BID BE SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL. 42 COMP. GEN. 255; AND B-152527, DECEMBER 4, 1963.

THE REQUIREMENT THAT A BID BE SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO A SITUATION WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DELAY IN RECEIPT WAS DUE TO MISHANDLING AT THE INSTALLATION. B-154718, SEPTEMBER 4, 1964; B-153763, APRIL 7, 1964; AND B-153190, MARCH 31, 1964. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE DELAY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO MISHANDLING AT THE INSTALLATION, TIMELY RECEIPT AT THE INSTALLATION MUST BE ESTABLISHED. UNDER THE LATE PROPOSAL CLAUSE, TIMELY RECEIPT IS ESTABLISHED UPON EXAMINATION OF AN APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION DATE OR TIME STAMP OR OF OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT AT SUCH INSTALLATION WITHIN THE CONTROL OF SUCH INSTALLATION OR OF THE POST OFFICE SERVING IT.

YOUR COMPANY'S PROPOSAL PACKAGE IS STAMPED SHOWING ARRIVAL AT THE NAVY PURCHASING OFFICE AT :24 A.M. ON MARCH 17, 1965. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOUR COMPANY'S PROPOSAL PACKAGE WAS RECEIVED TIMELY AT THE INSTALLATION. WHATEVER MISHANDLING OF THE PROPOSAL PACKAGE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN WOULD SEEM TO HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR TO RECEIPT AT THE GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION. AS OBSERVED ABOVE, THE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO REGISTERED AND CERTIFIED MAIL APPLY IN THAT SITUATION.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, OUR OFFICE HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DENY YOUR PROTEST.