Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Defense Logistics Agency
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Late proposal
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: It is the offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued a request for proposals (RFP), for excess property management and office support services to be performed in Kuwait. The RFP established a closing date and time of April 20 at “10 AM Sharp” local time. DLS issued two amendments to the RFP; the first included a revised closing date of April 23 and second amendment included a revised closing date of April 28. However, the time remained unchanged at 10 AM.
Alalamiah Technology Group (ATG) submitted its proposal electronically to the contracting official on April 28 in three volumes. The first volume was sent at 9:52 a.m., the second volume at 9:57 a.m., and the third volume was sent at 10:00 a.m. However, the contracting official did not receive the volumes until 10:03, 10:08, and 10:11. ATG was notified that its proposal was received late and would not be considered for award.
GAO states that it is the offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time. When a proposal is submitted electronically, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure timely delivery by transmitting the proposal sufficiently in advance of the time set for receipt of proposals to allow for timely receipt. The RFP, in this case, established that offerors’ proposals were to be received by April 28 at 10:00 a.m. The record shows that the primary cause of ATG’s late delivery was that the offeror delayed attempting to transmit its proposal until shortly before the time set for receipt. ATG did not act reasonably in waiting to transmit its electronic proposal until minutes before the time set for receipt of proposals, especially when ATG was aware of potentially long email delivery times common to its location. The protest is denied.