[Protest of Army Rejection of Late Proposal]

A firm protested the rejection of its late bid under an Army request for proposals which contained the standard late proposals clause. The contracting officer did not receive the protester's proposal until after the specified closing time for receipt for proposals. The protester contended that its late proposal should be accepted because delivery was made before the receipt deadline, the late receipt was the result of government mishandling, and the solicitation was unclear as to the location for delivery. GAO has held that an offerer has the responsibility of ensuring that its offer is delivered to the proper place at the proper time. Where, as in this case, delivery is made by a commercial carrier, an exception pertaining to government mishandling is inapplicable. Therefore, GAO denied the allegation that the Army mishandled the protester's proposal. In addition, the evidence was not clear that government action was the paramount cause of late receipt. GAO found that the paramount cause of the late delivery was the improper hand-delivery by the protester's delivery service. Finally, GAO did not agree that the solicitation was unclear as to the location for delivery. Accordingly, the protest was denied.