B-195388, AUG 20, 1979

B-195388, AUG 20, 1979

DIGEST: PROPOSAL DELIVERED BY AIR COURIER AFTER TIME SPECIFIED IN RFP FOR RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS DUE TO DELAY CAUSED BY GROUNDING OF DC-10 AIRCRAFT WAS PROPERLY REJECTED, SINCE RFP CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.

LEONARD LANE ASSOCIATES:

LEONARD LANE ASSOCIATES (LLA) PROTESTS THE REJECTION OF ITS PROPOSAL AS LATE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. NA-79-SAC-00742.

THE CLOSING TIME FOR RECEIPT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS WAS SCHEDULED FOR 2:00 P.M., JUNE 25, 1979, IN A DESIGNATED ROOM AT THE MAIN COMMERCE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. LLA SHIPPED ITS PROPOSAL BY AIR COURIER ON JUNE 22. DUE TO THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE GROUNDING OF DC-10 AIRCRAFT, THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT DELIVERED UNTIL JUNE 26. LLA CONTENDS THAT ITS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED, SINCE THERE WERE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DELIVERY.

PARAGRAPH 8(A) OF STANDARD FORM 33-A, "LATE PROPOSALS, MODIFICATIONS OF PROPOSALS, AND WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS," INCORPORATED INTO THE RFP, PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION OF A LATE PROPOSAL UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. LATE PROPOSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS RECEIVED BEFORE AWARD IS MADE AND IT WAS SENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL NOT LATER THAN THE FIFTH CALENDAR DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE SPECIFIED FOR RECEIPT OF OFFERS OR IT WAS SENT BY MAIL (OR TELEGRAM IF AUTHORIZED) AND IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE LATE RECEIPT WAS DUE SOLELY TO MISHANDLING BY THE GOVERNMENT AFTER RECEIPT AT THE GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION. NEIHER SITUATION IS PRESENT HERE.

OUR OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN OFFEROR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE TIMELY ARRIVAL OF ITS PROPOSAL. LATE RECEIPT OF AN OFFER WILL RESULT IN ITS REJECTION UNLESS THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE SOLICITATION ARE MET. H. OLIVER WELCH & COMPANY, B-193870, FEBRUARY 9, 1979, 79-1 CPD 96. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL WAS PROPER. LLA'S PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED PRIOR TO THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. THE FACT THAT IT WAS SENT VIA AN AIR COURIER DID NOT RELIEVE LLA OF ITS OBLIGATION TO ASSURE TIMELY ARRIVAL OF ITS PROPOSAL.

IN HOT LAKE DEVELOPMENT INC., ET AL., B-192512, AUGUST 18, 1978, 78-2 CPD 135, WE HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH TWO PROPOSALS WERE 25 MINUTES LATE IN ARRIVING AT THE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY DUE TO AN 18-MINUTE DELAY IN AN AIRLINE FLIGHT AND A 7-MINUTE DELAY IN MAKING PHONE CALLS CONCERNING THE LATE ARRIVAL, THEY WERE PROPERLY REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE SOLICITATION PERMITTING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER THE DESIGNATED CLOSING TIME IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED.

GENERALLY, WHERE IT IS CLEAR FROM A PROTESTER'S INITIAL SUBMISSION THAT THE PROTEST IS WITHOUT LEGAL MERIT, WE WILL DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSION WITHOUT REQUESTING A REPORT FROM THE PROCURING ACTIVITY PURSUANT TO OUR BID PROTEST PROCEDURES. H. OLIVER WELCH & COMPANY, SUPRA. THEREFORE, THE PROTEST IS SUMMARILY DENIED.