[Protest of Quotation Rejection by Navy]

A firm protested the rejection of its quotation for a lease-to-ownership plan for rental and maintenance of computer equipment and software by the Navy. Contract award was made to the firm that submitted the only timely quotation; the protester's quotation was not considered because it was received late. The protester stated that its quotation was delivered prior to the deadline required and that its lateness was caused by Government mishandling. The protester also noted that the request for quotations did not contain a late proposal clause. GAO found that the contracting agency should have accepted the late quotations, because a request for quotations to be delivered by a certain day and time, without a late quotations provision, cannot be construed as establishing a firm closing deadline for receipt of proposals. Rather, the contracting agency merely indicated to offerers when the award was expected to be made. By not establishing a definitive timeframe, the contracting agency was not precluded from considering a quotation received prior to award, if no substantial activity had transpired in the evaluation of quotations or prejudice to other offerers had occurred. Since these conditions were not present, GAO found that the protester's quotation should not have been rejected. Accordingly, the protest was sustained. However, since the equipment was ordered, GAO found it impractical to recommend any corrective action.