BNUMBER:  B-275988 
DATE: April 28, 1997 
TITLE: Matter of:Roy McGinnis & Co., Inc.   

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

Matter of:Roy McGinnis & Co., Inc.

File:     B-275988

Date:April 28, 1997

Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for the protester.
Barbara Bear, Esq., and Albert C. Proctor, Esq., Department of the 
Army, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that late bid should be considered because its late receipt 
was due to government mishandling is denied where paramount cause of 
late receipt was not government mishandling, but rather bidder's 
failure to allow reasonable time for bid to be delivered from the 
receiving fax machine to the location designated for bid opening.

DECISION

Roy McGinnis & Co., Inc. protests the Department of the Army's 
rejection of its bid modification as late under invitation for bids 
(IFB) No. DACA63-97-B-0003.  McGinnis alleges that its bid 
modification, which was transmitted by facsimile, reached the agency 
prior to the time established in the solicitation for bid opening, and 
that its rejection was therefore improper.  We deny the protest.

The IFB was issued on October 24, 1996, for construction and 
renovation services to alter classrooms, kitchen laboratories, and 
other portions of two designated buildings.  The IFB included Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.214-31, permitting bids and bid 
modifications to be submitted by facsimile; the solicitation specified 
817/978-3166 as the fax equipment dedicated to receiving such 
documents.  The IFB provided the bid opening location, listing a 
street address and room number, and established that bids would be 
opened at 2 p.m. on December 17, 1996.  
McGinnis submitted a bid without prices on December 3, and attempted 
to add this information to its bid by faxing a completed bid schedule 
as a bid modification on December 17.  The record shows that McGinnis 
transmitted one copy of its modification to the designated fax number 
and another copy to a fax machine provided by the agency as an 
alternate number under previous solicitations.  The machine-generated 
fax receipt log for the designated machine shows that McGinnis began 
transmitting its 5-page modification at 1:58 p.m. on December 17, and 
that the transmission took 1 minute and 55 seconds.  The designated 
fax machine was located in a room adjacent to the bid opening room.  
When the fax arrived, 
5 seconds before the scheduled bid opening, the clerk stationed at the 
machine followed the agency's established procedure of recording the 
bidder's name, the solicitation number, time and date removed from the 
fax machine, and the clerk's initials on an envelope, enclosing and 
sealing the fax in the envelope, and then delivering the envelope to 
the bid opening room by hand.  The clerk noted the time of receipt on 
the envelope as 2:03 p.m.  When she delivered the bid to the bid 
opening officer, bid opening had begun and the bid was rejected as 
late.

The transmission record for the unofficial fax machine (which was 
located approximately 120 feet away from the bid opening room) shows 
that McGinnis began transmitting the second copy of its modification 
at 1:59 p.m.  Since this transmission also took 1 minute, 55 seconds, 
it arrived after the 2 p.m. bid opening time; it was delivered to the 
bid opening room at 2:20 p.m.[1]

McGinnis protests that the modification that was faxed to the 
designated machine did, in fact, arrive before the 2 p.m. deadline and 
that it therefore should not have been rejected as late.  McGinnis 
argues that the clerk must have made a mistake in noting the arrival 
time as 2:03 p.m., since the machine's transmission record shows the 
fax's arrival time as 1:58:55.  The protester argues that once its 
modification was received by the designated fax machine prior to 2 
p.m., as evidenced by the fax machine log, "any subsequent failure of 
delivery is due solely to government mishandling."

A bid received in the office designated for the receipt of bids after 
the time set for bid opening is a late bid.  FAR  sec.  14.304-1.  It is 
the responsibility of the bidder to deliver its bid to the proper 
place at the proper time, and late delivery generally requires that a 
bid be rejected.  PDP Analytical Servs., B-251776.2 et al., Apr. 5, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  294 at 3.  However, a late bid can be considered for 
award if government mishandling after timely receipt at the agency was 
the paramount cause for its late receipt in the bid opening room, and 
consideration of the late bid would not compromise the integrity of 
the procurement process.  Butt Const. Co., Inc., 
B-258507, Jan. 30, 1995, 95-1 CPD 45 at 3; John J. Kirlin, Inc., 
B-250244, Dec. 15, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  419 at 2.  Mishandling typically 
occurs when the agency does not have reasonable internal delivery 
procedures or does not adhere to such procedures.  See, e.g., Watson 
Agency, Inc., B-241072, Dec. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  506 at 2-3.     

The record here does not show that government mishandling was the 
paramount cause of the late receipt of McGinnis's bid.  Bidders must 
allow a reasonable time for bids to be delivered from the point of 
receipt to the location designated for receipt of bids; when they do 
not do so, late arrival at the designated location cannot be 
attributed to government mishandling.  Bay Shipbuilding Corp., 
B-240301, Oct. 30, 1990, 91-1 CPD  para.  161 at 2-3.  Here, we think 
McGinnis's failure to allow sufficient time for its faxed bid to reach 
the bid opening room by the 2 p.m. deadline was the paramount cause of 
its lateness.  McGinnis appears to confuse arrival at the fax machine 
with arrival in the bid opening room.  Although the record shows that 
McGinnis's modification arrived at the fax machine 5 seconds before 
the deadline, this did not allow enough time for the clerk to follow 
the agency's establish procedures including reviewing the fax for its 
contents, marking relevant information on an envelope, placing the fax 
in the envelope, sealing the envelope and delivering it to the bid 
opening room. deadline.  In order to be considered timely, a bid must 
be received in the office designated for the receipt of bids, i.e., 
the bid opening room, by the time set for bid opening.  See PDP 
Analytical Servs., supra at 3.  Since McGinnis's bid did not reach the 
bid opening room by the bid opening time, it was late.  In addition, 
we conclude that the agency followed reasonable internal delivery 
procedures in delivering the bid from the designated fax machine to 
the bid opening room and did not cause its late arrival and, we have 
no legal basis to object to the agency's rejection of the bid as late.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although McGinnis's protest includes arguments concerning the 
agency's duty to accept a bid or modification faxed to this 
"unofficial" number, we will not consider these arguments, since the 
modification faxed to the alternate number was late and could not be 
accepted for that reason.