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.