Skip to Highlights
Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12. AS YOU WERE INFORMED IN THE DECISION OF APRIL 6. THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO DELAY OF YOUR BID IN THE MAILS. THIS WAS THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISION. YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS NOT SENT EITHER BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL AS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION OR THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE PROCUREMENT REGULATION. THE FACT THAT THE BID WAS DELAYED IN THE MAILS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSTED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO REACH THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE BEFORE BID OPENING DOES NOT EXCUSE ITS LATE RECEIPT AND ITS INABILITY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. WHERE WE HELD IN PART THAT: "WHILE YOUR BID APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TIMELY MAILED.

View Decision

B-160894, APR. 28, 1967

TO ACE ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1967, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-160894, DATED APRIL 6, 1967, WHICH DENIED YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THE REJECTION OF YOUR UNACCEPTABLE LATE BID UNDER NAVY INVITATION NO. N00163-67-B-0416.

AS YOU WERE INFORMED IN THE DECISION OF APRIL 6, THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE CONTRACTING OFFICE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO DELAY OF YOUR BID IN THE MAILS. HOWEVER, AND THIS WAS THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISION, YOUR BID ENVELOPE WAS NOT SENT EITHER BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL AS REQUIRED BY THE INVITATION OR THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE PROCUREMENT REGULATION. SEE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION (ASPR) 2-303.2. WE STATED THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INVITATION AND THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ASPR, THE FACT THAT THE BID WAS DELAYED IN THE MAILS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSTED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO REACH THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE BEFORE BID OPENING DOES NOT EXCUSE ITS LATE RECEIPT AND ITS INABILITY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. SEE 42 COMP. GEN. 255, WHERE WE HELD IN PART THAT:

"WHILE YOUR BID APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TIMELY MAILED, IT WAS NOT SENT EITHER BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL, AS REQUIRED BY THE QUOTED TERMS AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS CONSIDERATION IN THE EVENT OF LATE RECEIPT. INSTEAD, IT WAS POSTED UNDER A "CERTIFICATE OF MAILING," A METHOD OF MAILING NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOREGOING PROVISION.

"THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 4.8 OF THE INVITATION FOLLOW LITERALLY THE AMENDMENT OF APRIL 15, 1962, TO THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION. WHILE IT MAY BE THAT THE MAIL SERVICE YOU ELECTED TO USE COULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AS ADEQUATE TO SATISFY THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE SUBJECT PROVISION OF THE INVITATION,THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT WAS NOT LISTED THEREIN NOR IN THE CONTROLLING REGULATION. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE POSTAL MANUAL THAT THE ,CERTIFICATE OF MAILING" METHOD OF POSTING AN ARTICLE IN THE MAIL DIFFERS MATERIALLY FROM ,CERTIFIED MAIL," IN THAT IN THE LATTER CASE THE ARTICLE MAILED IS STAMPED BY THE RECEIVING POSTAL EMPLOYEE WITH AN IDENTIFYING NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE NUMBERED RECEIPT ISSUED FOR IT, WHEREAS A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING IS ISSUED WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION ON THE ARTICLE COVERED BY IT.'

THE INVESTIGATION REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER IS PROVIDED UNDER ASPR 2- 303.3 (C) WHICH REQUIRES THAT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NORMAL TIME FOR MAIL DELIVERY SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE PURCHASING ACTIVITY FROM THE POST OFFICE SERVING THE ACTIVITY. SINCE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO DELAY IN THE MAILS OF YOUR BID, IT WOULD SEEM THAT SUCH AN INVESTIGATION WAS MADE.

AS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, SINCE YOU FAILED TO UTILIZE ONE OF THE MAILING SERVICES LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 6 (A) OF THE BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS AND SINCE THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THESE ADVERTISED REQUIREMENTS, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE REJECTION OF YOUR LATE BID WAS PROPER. ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OUR DECISION WAS ISSUED, WE MUST CONCLUDE, UPON REVIEW, THAT YOUR BID WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AND OUR DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1957, IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts