B-166446, MAY 21, 1969

B-166446: May 21, 1969

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 31. BIDS WERE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 27. PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF BIDS A TELEGRAM WAS RECEIVED FROM YOUR COMPANY MODIFYING YOUR BID. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR BID WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON FEBRUARY 25. WAS FINALLY RECEIVED ON MARCH 3. THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING YOUR BID WAS MISADDRESSED. NEW MEXICO 87115" YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS ADDRESSED TO: "THE OFFICE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ROOM 110. ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE ENVELOPE IN QUESTION WAS MAILED AT 7:00 P.M. THERE WAS AN UNNECESSARY DELAY IN DELIVERY FOR WHICH THE POST OFFICE MUST ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY. THE D AND D EXPEDITER AT THE ALBUQUERQUE POST OFFICE STATION ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT HAD THE ENVELOPE BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED DELIVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE BID OPENING.

B-166446, MAY 21, 1969

TO ROBERT MCMULLAN AND SON, INCORPORATED:

THIS LETTER CONCERNS YOUR PROTEST OF MARCH 13, 1969, AGAINST THE REJECTION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF YOUR BID AS LATE UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. DASA02-69-B-0044, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY, SANDIA BASE, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

THE INVITATION FOR BIDS WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 31, 1969, FOR THE PAINTING OF GENERAL FACILITIES BUILDINGS AT SANDIA BASE. BIDS WERE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 27, 1969. PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF BIDS A TELEGRAM WAS RECEIVED FROM YOUR COMPANY MODIFYING YOUR BID. HOWEVER, THE BASIC BID HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR BID WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON FEBRUARY 25, 1969, AND WAS FINALLY RECEIVED ON MARCH 3, 1969. THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING YOUR BID WAS MISADDRESSED. THE INVITATION FOR BIDS INSTRUCTED BIDDERS TO ADDRESS BIDS TO:

"DASA, SANDIA BASE

PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING OFFICER

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87115" YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS ADDRESSED TO:

"THE OFFICE OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

ROOM 110, BUILDING 360

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO"

THE POSTMASTER AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE ENVELOPE IN QUESTION WAS MAILED AT 7:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 25, 1969, AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS AN UNNECESSARY DELAY IN DELIVERY FOR WHICH THE POST OFFICE MUST ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY. HOWEVER, THE D AND D EXPEDITER AT THE ALBUQUERQUE POST OFFICE STATION ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT HAD THE ENVELOPE BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED DELIVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE BID OPENING. WHILE THE ADDRESS ON YOUR LETTER CONTAINED A ROOM AND BUILDING NUMBER, THERE WAS NO PRIMARY STREET OR MILITARY BASE ADDRESS TO ENABLE READY LOCATION OF THAT BUILDING. MR. CORRAZZA OF THE DOWNTOWN ALBUQUERQUE POST OFFICE ADVISED THAT A LETTER ADDRESSED IN SUCH A MANNER WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE "NIXIE CLERK" FOR ASCERTAINING THE PROPER DESTINATION. IN SUCH A CASE IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT YOUR LETTER MAY HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE KIRTLAND POST OFFICE AND RETURNED TO THE DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE BEFORE FINALLY ARRIVING AT THE SANDIA BASE POST OFFICE. IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHOULD CONSIDER YOUR BID, UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE MISADDRESSING.

ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION 2-303.2 READS, IN PART:

"2-303.2 CONSIDERATION FOR AWARD. A LATE BID SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD ONLY IF:

"/I) IT IS RECEIVED BEFORE AWARD; AND EITHER

"/II) IT WAS SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL, OR BY CERTIFIED MAIL FOR WHICH AN OFFICIAL DATE POST OFFICE STAMP (POSTMARK) ON THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL HAS BEEN OBTAINED, OR BY TELEGRAPH IF AUTHORIZED, AND IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE LATENESS WAS DUE SOLELY TO A DELAY IN THE MAILS (BASED ON EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 2-303.3), OR TO A DELAY BY THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY FOR WHICH THE BIDDER WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE; * * *" EACH INDIVIDUAL BIDDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIMELY ARRIVAL OF HIS BID AND A LATE BID SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD UNLESS THE BIDDER CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE TO BRING IT WITHIN ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS. WHERE TIMELY MAILING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, AS HERE, A PRESUMPTION MAY ARISE THAT LATE ARRIVAL WAS DUE SOLELY TO A DELAY IN THE MAIL. IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT PRESUMPTION HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY REBUTTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ENVELOPE WAS MISADDRESSED. SEE 42 COMP. GEN. 508, B-161306, DATED APRIL 19, 1967, AND B-154875, DATED AUGUST 10, 1964. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED SOLELY BY MISHANDLING IN THE POST OFFICE, YOUR PROTEST MUST BE DENIED.