BNUMBER: B-274885
DATE: January 10, 1997
TITLE: Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc.
File: B-274885
Date:January 10, 1997
William L. Bruckner, Esq., Bruckner & Walker, for the protester.
Clinton D. Hubbard, Esq., for Weststar, Inc., an intervenor.
Christopher M. Bellomy, Department of the Navy, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency improperly considered awardee's late hand-carried
bid for award is denied where awardee's reasonable reliance on the
incorrect address specified in the solicitation for the delivery of
bids was the paramount cause of late receipt, and the awardee
submitted its bid to United Parcel Service (UPS) before bid opening
and it does not appear that the awardee handled or otherwise had
control over its bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was
delivered to the agency on the day after bid opening.
DECISION
Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Weststar, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N68711-96-B-5048,
issued by the Department of the Navy for repair of the runway and
taxiway at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Yuma, Arizona.
Palomar argues that the Navy was required to reject Weststar's bid as
late.
We deny the protest.
The IFB's cover page (Standard Form 1442) stated that bids were due at
the place specified in Item 8 by 2 p.m. on August 16, 1996. Item 8
indicated that bids were to be addressed to the issuing authority
identified in Item 7 as follows:
"Officer in Charge of Construction
Building 731, MCAS
Box 99129
Yuma AZ 85265-9129"
The zip code set forth in Item 7, however, is incorrect; that zip code
identifies Tempe, Arizona, as the destination, while the correct zip
codes for MCAS Yuma are 85369 or 85365. The IFB's cover page advised
offerors seeking additional information to contact Ms. R. Ruth at
(520) 341-2663.
At the bid opening on August 16, bids were received from Palomar and
three other bidders. In addition, shortly before bid opening, the
agency received a telephone modification sent by Weststar through
Western Union, and subsequently confirmed by facsimile transmission
and mailgram, asking the agency to "deduct $250,000 from base bid item
0001A and from total bid price." Weststar's original bid was not
received by the agency until its delivery by United Parcel Service
(UPS) at approximately 11:08 a.m. (according to UPS records) or 11:14
a.m. (according to the agency) on the following day. As modified,
Weststar's bid was low.
UPS shipping documents and tracking information indicate that Weststar
furnished its bid to UPS on August 15 for promised delivery to MCAS
Yuma by 10:30 a.m. on August 16. Weststar's bid was addressed to:
"R. Ruth, Telephone (520) 341-2663
MCAS OICC
Building 731
Yuma, AZ 85265-9129"
As indicated above, the zip code used by Weststar, although the one
specified on the cover sheet of the solicitation (and in Amendment No.
0001 to the solicitation) for receipt of bids, in fact identified the
destination as Tempe and not MCAS Yuma. UPS tracking information and
a report from UPS indicate that as a result of the incorrect zip code,
Weststar's bid package was first sent to Tempe on August 16, was
logged in there at 7:08 a.m. on August 16, and then was sent to Yuma
via Phoenix on August 17, with delivery to MCAS made shortly after
11:00 a.m. on August 17.
The Navy determined that Weststar's bid had been delivered to UPS in
sufficient time to permit delivery to MCAS Yuma before the scheduled
bid opening as specified in the solicitation and that the sole or
paramount cause of the late delivery was the erroneous zip code
furnished by the agency in the solicitation. In the absence of any
evidence that Weststar had handled or otherwise had control over its
bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was delivered to
MCAS Yuma on the day after bid opening, the agency concluded that the
bid could be considered for award.
Upon learning of the resulting award to Weststar, Palomar filed this
protest with our Office against acceptance of Weststar's bid, arguing
that the bid instead should be rejected as late. Palomar questions
Weststar's reliance on the incorrect zip code specified on the cover
sheet of the solicitation, noting that elsewhere in the solicitation
the correct, different zip code (85369-9129) was used when advising
offerors how to contact the Officer in Charge of Construction--at Box
99129, Yuma, AZ--for purposes of making technical inquiries, obtaining
specifications and serving a copy of any bid protest. In addition,
Palomar points out that the address used by Westar differed from that
specified on the cover sheet in several respects: the post office box
number was left off; the bid was addressed to "R. Ruth OICC" when Ms.
Ruth, although listed in the solicitation as a point of contact, in
fact was the bid opening officer and not the Officer in Charge of
Construction; Weststar used a standard acronym (OICC) for Officer in
Charge of Construction rather than spelling out the term.[1]
Bidders generally are responsible for delivering their bids to the
proper place at the proper time. Watson Agency, Inc., B-241072, Dec.
19, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 506. At the same time, however, the government
has the duty to establish procedures for the timely receipt of bids.
Select, Inc., B-245820.2, Jan. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 22. Accordingly,
one of the fundamental principles underlying the rules for the
consideration of late bids is that a bidder who has done all it could
and should to fulfill its responsibility should not suffer if the bid
did not arrive as required because the government failed in its own
responsibility, and if that is otherwise consistent with the integrity
of the competitive system. We therefore have held that a late
hand-carried bid may be considered for award if to do so would not
compromise the competitive system and either the government's
"affirmative misdirection" made timely delivery impossible, Select,
Inc., supra, or government mishandling after timely receipt by the
agency was the sole or paramount cause for the bid's late receipt at
the designated location. AABLE Tank Servs., Inc., B-273010, Nov. 12,
1996, 96-2 CPD para. 180; Kelton Contracting, Inc., B-262255, Dec. 12,
1995, 95-2 CPD para. 254.
In our view, the government was the paramount cause of the late
receipt of Weststar's hand-carried bid. We have permitted late
hand-carried bids to be considered where the bidder's reasonable
reliance on improper delivery instructions in the solicitation made it
impossible for the bid to be timely delivered to the bid opening
location. See, e.g., Select, Inc., supra. Here, although Weststar
sent its bid by means reasonably likely to result in delivery at the
bid opening location prior to the scheduled opening time had the
correct zip code been used, the zip code specified in the solicitation
for delivery of bids and used by Weststar was incorrect; as a result,
Weststar's bid was first sent to the wrong city and only arrived at
MCAS Yuma on the day after bid opening. Although Palomar argues that
the use of a different zip code for MCAS Yuma elsewhere in the
solicitation should have alerted Weststar to the possibility that it
was relying on an incorrect zip code, the president of Weststar has
stated that he was unaware of the discrepancy and, in our view, the
discrepancy in the zip codes was not sufficiently apparent that
Weststar should have been on notice of a possible mistake in the
address specified in the solicitation for delivery of bids. As for
the differences between the address used by Weststar and that
specified on the cover sheet of the solicitation, there is no
indication in the record that these discrepancies materially
contributed to the untimely delivery of Weststar's bid. Further,
Weststar submitted its bid to UPS before bid opening and the president
of Weststar has stated that Weststar never saw or otherwise handled
its bid after it was surrendered to UPS and before it was delivered to
MCAS Yuma. Since Weststar's reasonable reliance on the incorrect
address specified by the agency for the delivery of bids was the
paramount cause of the late receipt of its bid, and since Weststar
relinquished control over its bid before bid opening and thus
consideration of the bid for award would not be inconsistent with the
integrity of the competitive system, we conclude that the agency
properly determined not to reject the bid as late.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Palomar also claims that Weststar used the wrong telephone number,
(620) 341-2663 rather than the (520) 341-2663 specified for Ms. Ruth
in the solicitation. Weststar, however, maintains that Palomar has
simply misread the hand-written number and our review confirms that
the first number in the area code more closely resembles the 5s on the
mailing label than the 6s. Although Palomar further claims that
Weststar used the number "1" rather than the letter "I" in the
abbreviation (OICC) for Officer in Charge of Construction, our review
indicates that it was not apparent from the face of the mailing label
that a "1" rather than an "I" was intended. Thus, any mistake in this
regard was unlikely to delay delivery.