BNUMBER:  B-276143 
DATE:  May 15, 1997
TITLE: Logistics Management Resources, Inc., B-276143, May 15, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Logistics Management Resources, Inc.

File:     B-276143

Date:May 15, 1997

Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester.
Major Michael J. O'Farrell, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, 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 delivered after the 
time set for receipt of proposals where the protester did not allow 
reasonable time to ensure timely delivery of proposal to the 
designated location.

DECISION

Logistics Management Resources, Inc. (LMR) protests as improper the 
rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. DABT60-96-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army, Army 
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), for information processing 
support services.  We deny the protest.

As amended, the RFP provided that the closing time and date for 
receipt of proposals was 1 p.m., January 30, 1997, at the designated 
agency issuing office or, if handcarried, to the depository located in 
Building 2798, TRADOC Contracting Activity, Fort Eustis, Virginia.  
The RFP incorporated by reference the then applicable late proposals 
clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  52.215-10 (FAC 
90-39), which generally provides that any proposal received at the 
office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified 
for receipt will not be considered.  The clause also provides 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.  
The RFP provided that hand-delivered proposals were to be delivered to 
the depository in Building 2798.  The agency's procedures called for 
acceptance by the secretary of the director of the contracting 
activity.  It also is not disputed that there was a sign at the 
reception desk directing visitors to that workstation with an arrow 
pointing the way to that workstation.

LMR maintains that its proposal was timely delivered by two of its 
representatives to the place specified in the solicitation.  However, 
in an affidavit furnished by one of the two representatives, this 
individual states that after "[he] opened the door and entered the 
reception area of Building 2798, [he] looked at [his] watch and turned 
to [the other representative] and told him that it was 1:00 p.m."  
They proceeded to the reception desk but no one was there and they did 
not see the signs indicating where visitors should go to deliver 
proposals.[1]  One of LMR's representatives signed the log-in book 
located on the counter (the log-in book had no time-in/time-out block) 
and after waiting "several minutes" and calling out for assistance 
from agency personnel, the other LMR representative proceeded down the 
hallway to another workstation, which was the workstation of the 
secretary to the director.  The secretary accepted the proposal 
package and gave the LMR  representative a receipt stamped "30 Jan 97 
1:07 PM."  By letter of January 31, the agency informed LMR that its 
proposal was received late, and, therefore would not be considered.  

In its protest, LMR contends that its proposal was submitted by the 1 
p.m. closing time because the proposal was in Building 2798 at 12:57 
p.m.  In an affidavit submitted with its protest, LMR's representative 
states that on January 31, he checked the accuracy of his watch using 
the Naval Observatory master clock and discovered that his watch "was 
running three minutes fast."[2]  Alternatively, LMR argues that if its 
proposal was, in fact, delivered late, the government is primarily at 
fault because the reception area in Building 2798 was unattended and 
there were no apparent signs indicating where in the building 
proposals were to be delivered.

The offeror has the responsibility for timely delivering a 
hand-carried proposal to the designated location and personnel within 
the agency.  Spectronics Corp.,        B-260924, July 27, 1995, 95-2 
CPD  para.  47 at 2.  By choosing a method of delivery other than those 
methods specified in the then applicable late proposals clause, an 
offeror assumes a high degree of risk that its proposal will be 
rejected if untimely delivered.  Koba Assocs., Inc., B-265854, Nov. 8, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  212 at 2.  Whether a hand-carried proposal is late is 
measured by its time of arrival at the location designated in the RFP, 
not by its  time of arrival at a reception area in the building.  See 
Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, B-259552, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  153 at 3.  

As noted previously, the solicitation stated that hand-carried 
proposals were to be delivered to the depository in Building 2798 at 
the agency installation.  In view of this express direction regarding 
where to submit proposals, it is irrelevant that LMR's representatives 
may have arrived at Building 2798 at 1 p.m or 12:57 p.m. (as verified 
by the protester the next day).  What is relevant here is the agency's 
time/date stamp which indicated that LMR's proposal was delivered to 
the agency at 1:07 p.m.--7 minutes after the time set for delivery.  
Since the only acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at 
the installation is the time/date stamp or other documentary evidence 
of receipt maintained at the installation, we conclude that LMR's 
proposal was late.  See Seer Publishing, Inc., B-237359, Feb. 12, 
1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  181 at 5.
   
A late hand-carried proposal may be considered for award where 
improper government action was the sole or paramount cause for the 
late receipt.  Improper government action in this context is 
affirmative action that makes it impossible for the offeror to deliver 
the proposal on time.  Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, supra.  In determining 
whether that standard is met, we consider whether the offeror 
significantly contributed to the late delivery by not acting 
reasonably in fulfilling its own responsibility to submit its proposal 
in a timely manner.  Id.

Here, under LMR's own account of the circumstances surrounding 
delivery of its  proposal,  LMR's representatives arrived at the 
building only 3 minutes prior to the time specified in the 
solicitation for delivery of proposals.  Upon arrival, they did not 
see the sign at the reception desk directing visitors to the next 
workstation or the arrow pointing in the direction of that 
workstation.  The record further indicates that the protester had not 
telephoned ahead to find out what procedures it should follow to make 
delivery once its representatives arrived at the building.  Under 
these circumstances, we conclude that LMR's actions in leaving only a 
few minutes to effect delivery, in failing to seek speficic delivery 
information in advance of their arrival, and in not noticing the 
posted sign and arrow were the paramount cause for the late delivery 
of LMR's proposal.  Therefore, the agency's rejection of LMR's late 
proposal was proper.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States     
   
1. The agency has provided a statement from an agency procurement 
clerk which states that she repeatedly walked from the secretary to 
the director's workstation to the unmanned reception desk several 
times prior to 1 p.m. and saw no one at the desk at 1 p.m.

2. On the other hand, the agency reports that the accuracy of its 
time/date stamp was verified on January 30 by using the local 
telephone company's time of day service.