Skip to main content

[Protest of Navy Rejection of Bid for Aircraft Tow Tractors]

B-219618 Published: Nov 08, 1985. Publicly Released: Nov 08, 1985.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested the Navy's rejection of its bid as late, contending that, since the Navy official did not time/date stamp either the proposal or the courier's delivery receipt, the handwritten time notation and signature on the receipt should be deemed as conclusive evidence of timely delivery. GAO noted that: (1) a man at the bid receipt office accepted the proposal, marked the courier's receipt by hand to show the time, and signed the name of the supervisory contract negotiator on the delivery receipt; (2) the Navy official denied that the signature was his and denied any knowledge of the document; and (3) the notation that the proposal was received on time was inserted by someone else after the official signed the receipt. The Navy argued that: (1) an employee accepting a delivery at the customer service counter would sign his own name and not that of the addressee or anyone else; (2) the recipient's copy of the shipping document would have been attached to the package; (3) a package addressed to a specific Navy official would be delivered to that person, not carried to a service counter and left there; and (4) while a clerk was not continuously present at the desk, there were several employees in the area immediately adjacent to the service desk. GAO found that: (1) the protester's account of the delivery was contrary to accepted practice for receiving proposals; (2) it is the responsibility of the offerer to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time; (3) there was no official time/date stamp placed on the proposal; (4) the only evidence of timely delivery offered was the commercial carrier's receipt which the Navy totally disclaimed; (5) the second receipt that was signed by the same Navy contract negotiator appeared to have been altered, after it had been signed, to incorrectly reflect timely delivery of the original proposal; and (6) the receipts and records of commercial carriers are insufficient by themselves to establish timely receipt. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bid rejection protestsLate bidsMail delivery problemsNaval procurementU.S. NavyBid proposalsBid evaluation protestsCustomer serviceIntellectual property rightsFederal acquisition regulationsAircraft acquisition program