BNUMBER:  B-271841
DATE:  July 15, 1996
TITLE:  Great Plains Asbestos Control, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Great Plains Asbestos Control, Inc.

File:     B-271841

Date:July 15, 1996

Danne W. Webb, Esq., Miller Law Firm, for the protester.
Marian E. Sullivan, Esq., and Christopher L. Smith, Esq., Department 
of the Air Force, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where commercial carrier, on its own initiative, left bid package at 
military installation's freight terminal during an installation 
security exercise--where security exercise did not impede delivery to 
proper location specified in solicitation--and   carrier made no 
attempt to deliver the parcel to the proper location, the bid, when 
received late at the required location, was properly rejected since 
improper government action was not the sole or paramount cause of the 
bid's late arrival.

DECISION

Great Plains Asbestos Control, Inc. protests the rejection of its bid 
as late under invitation for bids (IFB) No. F48608-96-B-0001, issued 
by the Department of the Air Force for asbestos abatement services.

We deny the protest.

The IFB, which established bid opening for Friday, March 15, 1996, at 
2 p.m., instructed bidders to address their bids to "90th Contracting 
Squadron, 7505 Marne Loop" at F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), 
Wyoming.  Great Plains's bid was not included among those presented 
and opened at the scheduled bid opening; the protester's bid was not 
received at the bid opening location until Monday, March 18 at 2:15 
p.m.

Great Plains states that its bid was timely received by the Air Force 
and should be considered for award since it was delivered by United 
Parcel Service (UPS) to Warren AFB's Transportation Building, the 
installation's freight terminal, at 
10:13 a.m. on March 15.  The protester explains that the UPS driver 
delivered the bid package to the Transportation Building, rather than 
the specified address of the 90th Contracting Squadron, because the 
base was under a security exercise procedure at the time of delivery 
and, according to the UPS driver, delivery at the Transportation 
Building of UPS packages during such an exercise is an acceptable and 
customary practice.  In support of its contentions, the protester 
provides a copy of March 15 delivery records obtained from UPS (which 
include the package's UPS shipping number and a computerized signature 
of the Air Force airman who allegedly accepted the package) and an 
affidavit from the UPS driver.  The protester contends that government 
mishandling of the bid package--which package was properly addressed 
to the 90th Contracting Squadron and was marked "BID OPENING 2:00 PM 
Deliver Immediately"--was the sole or paramount cause of the bid's 
late receipt at the location specified in the solicitation for the 
delivery of bids.

The Air Force reports that, according to agency delivery records (Form 
3135), the protester's bid package was not delivered to the 
Transportation Building until Monday, March 18.  The agency states 
that, in accordance with its standard procedures, a Form 3135 was 
prepared shortly after receipt of the package and the contracting 
officer (to whom the package was addressed and who had been notified 
by Great Plains after bid opening that the firm had submitted a bid) 
was notified that the protester's package was available to be picked 
up at the Transportation Building.  Upon return to his 90th 
Contracting Squadron Office, the contracting officer date/time stamped 
the protester's bid package as received at 2:15 p.m. on March 18.

The agency contends that the paramount cause of the bid's late receipt 
at the proper bid depository location was the failure of the 
protester's commercial carrier to deliver the package, as addressed, 
to the proper location identified in the solicitation.   The agency 
explains that while it will accept delivery at the Transportation 
Building where a commercial carrier is unable to deliver the package 
to the addressed location, there is no agreement between the agency 
and UPS that packages may be delivered to the Transportation Building 
instead of the 90th Contracting Squadron during security exercises.  
The agency states that on March 15, an Air Force airman accepted 
several packages from the UPS driver at the Transportation Building, 
but the airman does not specifically recall whether Great Plains's bid 
package was among them.[1]

The agency emphasizes that there were no impediments to proper 
delivery of any bid packages to the identified 90th Contracting 
Squadron address on the date of the scheduled bid opening, and that 
other commercial carrier companies properly delivered packages to the 
stated bid receipt location on the date of, and prior to, the 
scheduled bid opening.  The agency states that although there was a 
security exercise in effect on the date of bid opening, there were no 
additional procedures that a commercial carrier had to deal with on 
that date to deliver a bid package to the proper location specified in 
the solicitation; an agency employee was positioned at the entrance of 
the 90th Contracting Squadron Building to promptly receive such 
packages.  The agency also emphasizes that the UPS driver admits he 
never attempted delivery at the proper location for receipt of bids 
under the IFB, despite that address being on the protester's bid 
package, but rather decided, on his own initiative, to deliver the 
protester's package along with several other packages (addressed to 
other locations on the base) to the Transportation Building.

As a general rule, a bidder is responsible for delivering its bid to 
the proper place at the proper time; a bid is late if it does not 
arrive at the office designated in the solicitation by the time 
specified.  See Martin G. Imbach, Inc., B-224536, Feb. 25, 1987, 87-1 
CPD  para.  215.  Where, as here, a bid is delivered by a commercial 
carrier, the bid is regarded as a hand-carried bid.  A late 
hand-carried bid may be considered where the protester shows that 
improper action on the part of the government is the sole or paramount 
cause of the bid's late receipt, such as where the delivery person 
attempts to deliver a hand-carried bid to the place designated for 
receipt but is prevented by government personnel from doing so.  See 
Inland Marine Indus., Inc., B-233117, Feb. 16, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  165.  
There is no showing of such improper action here.  

First, the record contains no corroborating evidence from a source 
other than UPS to support the contention of delivery of the 
protester's bid package on March 15; the agency's own records, 
although considered inaccurate by the protester, show delivery 
occurred on March 18, 3 days after bid opening.  This lack of 
corroborating evidence of the time of alleged receipt alone provides a 
basis for denial of the protest.  See J.C.N. Constr. Co., Inc., 
B-270068; B-270068.2, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  42; Qualimetrics, Inc., 
B-213162, Mar. 20, 1984, 84-1 CPD  para.  332.

Second, even if delivery did take place on March 15, the protester's 
contention that delivery to the Transportation Building was 
appropriate due to the ongoing security exercise on the base is not 
reasonably supported by the record.  Although the UPS driver contends 
that he has delivered packages to this freight terminal during past 
base exercises, there is no evidence in the record of any agreement 
between the agency and the commercial carrier permitting delivery of 
bid packages to other than the specified location for receipt of those 
bids unless delivery at the specified location was impeded or 
unsuccessful.  Thus, in this case there is no question that the bid 
was delivered to the wrong location solely because of the UPS driver's 
own decision to deliver to the freight terminal.

In this regard, even though the package was marked by the sender for 
immediate delivery for a 2 p.m. bid opening (without specifying a date 
for such bid opening),   the freight terminal personnel reasonably may 
not be accustomed to the time-sensitive nature of bids and could not 
reasonably be expected to ensure delivery of the bid package to the 
proper location by the time of bid opening.  See Work Sys. Design, 
Inc., B-223942, Nov. 26, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  613.

In short, the record in this case demonstrates that through no fault 
of the government, the UPS driver misdelivered the bid package upon 
his own initiative  and in doing so significantly contributed to the 
bid's late receipt at the proper location.  Consequently, we have no 
basis to question the propriety of the agency's rejection of the bid.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency questions the accuracy of the UPS delivery records since 
agency delivery records show receipt of the bid package on March 18.  
Although the airman's signature appears next to the package's UPS 
shipping number on the UPS delivery log for March 15, the record shows 
that the airman signed once for several packages, and that the 
signature alleged to be given upon receipt of the protester's bid 
package is nothing more than a computer generated copy of the sole 
signature obtained.