BNUMBER: B-265854
DATE: November 8, 1995
TITLE: Koba Associates, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Koba Associates, Inc.
File: B-265854
Date: November 8, 1995
Ernest P. Francis, Esq., for the protester.
Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health & Human Services, for the
agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency properly rejected a hand-carried proposal that was delivered to
the depository office 3 minutes after the time specified for receipt
of initial proposals where the protester's actions were the paramount
cause of the late delivery.
DECISION
Koba Associates, Inc. protests the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment's (CSAT) refusal to consider its proposal submitted in
response to request for proposals (RFP) No. CSAT-95-0024, because the
proposal was received at the contracts office 3 minutes after the time
specified for submission of initial proposals.
We deny the protest.
Issued on June 30, 1995, the RFP requested proposals for furnishing
technical assistance and training services in support of treatment
centers operated under CSAT's Criminal Justice Treatment Networks.
The RFP stated that initial proposals must be received in CSAT's
contracts office no later than 2 p.m. on August 21, and that
hand-carried proposals should be delivered to the following address:
"Jacquelyn C. Carey, Contracting Officer
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
Contracts Management Branch
5515 Security Lane, Rockwall II
Suite 6A-26
Rockville, Maryland 20857"
The RFP included the standard late proposals clause, Federal
Acquisition Regulation 52.215-10, which states that, generally, any
proposal received at the office designated in the solicitation after
the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered. The
clause also states that the only acceptable evidence to establish the
time of receipt at the government installation is the time/date stamp
of that installation or other documentary evidence of receipt
maintained by the installation.
Koba contends that the late submission "resulted solely from the
confusing and misleading signs" on the floor where the office for
hand-delivery is located. Koba states that there is no sign for suite
6A-26 or for the Contracts Management Branch
on that floor. Koba asserts that its employee arrived at the building
"well before
2 p.m. with plenty of time to meet the deadline," but was delayed
because he was unable to find suite 6A-26. Koba asserts that when its
employee attempted to deliver the proposal, the contract specialist in
the depository office time/date stamped the proposal as having been
received at 2:03 p.m., determined that the proposal was late, and
refused to accept it.[1].
Koba explains that upon exiting the elevator, the delivery person saw
signs that pointed to the left for rooms 630-670 or to the right for
rooms 615-623. Koba's delivery man turned the wrong way and went to
room 640 where he states that he had previously delivered proposals to
CSAT. An individual in room 640 directed the delivery person to room
621 at the opposite end of the corridor; room 6A-26 is located within
room 621. While en route, the delivery person encountered a CSAT
employee (a contract specialist) who accompanied him to room 621. The
CSAT employee unlocked the door to room 621 and led the delivery man
to a secretary. According to Koba, the contract specialist instructed
the secretary to accept the offer but, at that point in time, the
contracting officer appeared and refused to accept the offer because
it was late.
It is the responsibility of the offeror to deliver its proposal to the
proper place at the proper time, and late delivery generally requires
that a proposal be rejected. See Robert R. Nathan Assocs., Inc.,
B-230707, June 28, 1988, 88-1 CPD 615. By choosing a method of
delivery other than those methods specified in the late proposal
clause (registered mail, certified mail or telegram where authorized),
an offeror assumes a high degree of risk that its proposal will be
rejected if untimely delivered. Id. A late proposal should not be
considered for award if the offeror significantly contributed to its
late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its responsibility
of delivering a hand-carried offer to the proper place at the proper
time, even where lateness may have been caused, in part, by erroneous
government action or advice. See Seer Publishing, Inc., B-237359,
Feb. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD 181.
While Koba asserts that its employee arrived at the building "with
plenty of time" or "ample time" to make a timely delivery, Koba never
states when its employee actually arrived at the building. Moreover,
while Koba generally states that the corridor signs were misleading,
there is nothing in the record showing, and Koba has not shown, that
its messenger was misdirected by any particular sign or by a
government employee. In fact, Koba submitted a picture showing that
the door to the room containing suite 6A-26 bore a sign that read
"Contracts Branch," and, according to Koba's own statement, the only
government employee with whom the messenger spoke, a contract
specialist, was very helpful and led Koba's employee directly to the
contracts office. Thus, the record contains no evidence of any
government action or advice that contributed to Koba's proposal being
submitted late. Rather, it appears that the only reason that Koba's
proposal was late was that Koba did not act reasonably by having its
messenger arrive at the building in which CSAT is located early enough
to locate the depository office and submit the proposal on time.[2]
Based on this record, we conclude that Koba, not the contracting
agency, was the paramount cause of the late submission. The offer
therefore properly was not considered for contract award. See Seer
Publishing, Inc., supra.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States.
1. Five other hand-carried proposals were submitted in a timely
manner.
2. Although not necessary to resolve the protest, because Koba did not
tell us when its employee arrived at the CSAT building, a General
Accounting Office attorney visited the CSAT site (without notice to
the agency) in order to determine approximately how long it should
have taken the messenger to find the depository room given the hallway
signs that were posted, to calculate the approximate time that the
Koba messenger arrived at the CSAT building, and to better understand
the layout of the offices and relevant signs. Following the exact
route described by Koba as being taken by its messenger, our attorney
found that the entire search, from the building's front door to the
contracts office, took only 5 minutes and, therefore, confirmed that
Koba's delivery person could not have arrived at the building more
then a few minutes before the closing time.