BNUMBER:  B-276486 
DATE:  May 19, 1997
TITLE: The Staubach Company, B-276486, May 19, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:The Staubach Company

File:     B-276486

Date:May 19, 1997

David M. Nadler, Esq., and C. Ernest Edgar IV, Esq., Dickstein, 
Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, LLP, for the protester.
Emily C. Hewitt, Esq., and Barry D. Segal, Esq., General Services 
Administration, for the agency.
Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency properly rejected a hand-carried offer as late where the 
price proposal was timely submitted, but the required technical and 
key personnel portions of the proposal were not submitted before the 
closing time set for receipt of offers.

2. Where solicitation required offerors to submit price, technical, 
and key personnel proposals, each in separate volumes, and the 
technical and key personnel areas represented a significant portion of 
the technical evaluation, record reasonably supports agency's 
determination that allowing protester to submit technical and key 
personnel proposals after the date set for receipt of proposals would 
be tantamount to the improper acceptance of a late proposal. 

DECISION

The Staubach Company protests the rejection of its proposals under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-02P-96-CVD-0006, issued by the 
General Services Administration (GSA) for real estate services.  The 
GSA rejected Staubach's proposals because, although the protester 
timely submitted price proposals, the required technical and key 
personnel proposals were not submitted by the time established in the 
RFP for receipt of proposals.

We deny the protest.

The successful contractor is to assist GSA in obtaining leasehold 
interests and provide a variety of other real estate-related services 
nationwide.  For evaluation and administration purposes, the RFP 
divided the United States and territories into four geographic regions 
or service zones, and required offerors to submit separate proposals 
for each zone.  Each proposal was to consist of three physically 
separate volumes--volume I (price proposal); volume II (technical 
proposal); and volume III (key personnel resumes and other 
information).  The RFP contained detailed instructions on the type of 
information to be included in each proposal section, and required that 
volume I be packaged individually, while volumes II and III could be 
packaged together.  Proposals were to be submitted to a designated GSA 
office in New York no later than 4:30 p.m., February 21, 1997.

Mr. Peter J. Downes, president of a consulting firm retained by 
Staubach to assist it with preparing, packaging, and delivering its 
proposals, submitted an affidavit to our Office describing the events 
surrounding the delivery of Staubach's proposals to the GSA.  Mr. 
Downes states that for each of the four zones covered by the RFP, 
Staubach's proposal consisted of an envelope which contained a cover 
letter and volume I (the price proposal for that zone), and a 
corresponding box which contained volumes II and III.  In total, there 
were four envelopes and four boxes--one envelope and one box for each 
of the four zones covered by the RFP.

Mr. Downes explains that at approximately 2:35 p.m. on February 20, 
1997, he telephoned DHL Same Day Air, a commercial courier with which 
he had made arrangements earlier that day to pick up and deliver 
Staubach's proposals to GSA in New York, to check on the status of the 
delivery.  According to Mr. Downes, DHL confirmed that the eight 
pieces had been placed on a US Air Shuttle flight to New York's La 
Guardia Airport and would be delivered to GSA by 4:30 p.m. that day.

At 4:15 p.m. on February 20, Mr. Downes telephoned GSA's bid room to 
confirm delivery of Staubach's proposals.  Mr. Downes states that a 
GSA employee in the bid room confirmed that she had received a DHL 
delivery from Staubach.   Mr. Downes states that he expressed concern 
about this delivery, and asked for assurance that she had received 
"four envelopes and four boxes," to which she allegedly responded, 
"[d]on't worry Mr. Downes.  Everything has been received."[1]

The contracting officer explains that on Monday, February 24, he 
discovered that Staubach's submission consisted of only four separate 
envelopes, each containing a volume I, all of which were inside a 
white plastic bag labeled "US Air Shuttle Pak."  On February 27, after 
searching the bid room and other areas of GSA's offices, the 
contracting officer informed Staubach that although GSA had timely 
received volume I of the firm's proposals, GSA had not received any of 
the corresponding volumes II or III of the proposals for any of the 
four zones.  Upon further inquiry, the protester located the four 
missing boxes at La Guardia Airport's Lost and Found.  The four boxes 
were then delivered to the GSA bid room on Friday, February 28.

By letter dated March 6, the contracting officer informed the 
protester that GSA could not properly consider volumes II or III of 
Staubach's proposal because they were received after the time 
established in the RFP for receipt of initial offers and rejected 
Staubach's proposals as "technically unacceptable."  This protest to 
our Office followed.

The protester contends that GSA should consider its proposals because 
the failure to timely deliver the four boxes was the result of 
government mishandling.  The protester argues that Mr. Downes was 
misled by the GSA bid room employee into believing that GSA had 
received Staubach's proposals when, in fact, the four boxes containing 
volumes II and III of the proposals had not been received.  The 
protester maintains that Mr. Downes was entitled to rely on the bid 
room employee's representation and that had Mr. Downes been properly 
informed that the four boxes had not been delivered, he would have had 
ample time to personally deliver the missing volumes to GSA by the 
established deadline.[2]

It is the responsibility of the offeror to deliver its proposal to the 
proper place at the proper time, and late delivery generally requires 
rejection of the proposal.  Carter Mach. Co., Inc., B-245008, Aug. 7, 
1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  143 at 2.  A proposal delivered to an agency by 
commercial carrier, such as DHL, is considered to be hand carried and, 
if it arrives late, can only be considered if it is shown that some 
government impropriety was the paramount cause of the proposal's late 
arrival.  Motorola Inc., B-219592, July 24, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  84 at 
1-2.  Thus, the question here is not whether there was 
mishandling--the concept of mishandling applies only after there has 
been receipt at the government installation, see Federal Acquisition 
Regulation  sec.  52.215-10 (FAC 90-44)--but whether the telephone advice 
allegedly given to Mr. Downes constituted improper government action 
that was the paramount cause of the late receipt of Staubach's 
proposals.  We think that it was not.

The government has no obligation to advise offerors of whether their 
proposals have arrived and its failure to do so, or to provide 
accurate information about whether a proposal is complete as received, 
does not provide grounds for requiring an agency to consider a late 
proposal.  Selrico Servs., Inc., B-259709.2, May 1, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
224 at 2.  Thus, even if GSA's bid room employees inaccurately 
reported to Mr. Downes that "everything has been received," as the 
protester alleges, Staubach assumed the risk that the information 
might not be accurate or that the GSA employee was mistaken.  This is 
a similar situation to Selrico Servs., Inc., supra, where an Air Force 
contract administrator mistakenly advised the protester that its bid 
had been received, a fact that did not relieve the protester of its 
responsibility to submit its bid on time and which, thus, did not 
require the government to accept the bid.  In short, Mr. Downes's 
telephone inquiry did not relieve Staubach, through its agents--the 
consulting company, US Air Shuttle, and DHL--of its obligation to 
deliver its proposals to the proper place at the proper time.  See 
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., B-215382, Sept. 10, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  
274 
at 2.

Moreover, given the sequence of events leading up to the late delivery 
of Staubach's proposals, the information GSA's bid room employees 
provided to Mr. Downes, even if mistaken, cannot reasonably be viewed 
as the paramount cause for the late delivery of the four boxes.  The 
late delivery was due to the failure of DHL to maintain Staubach's 
proposals together as a single shipment.  Further, there is no 
evidence that DHL ever attempted to timely deliver the four boxes to 
the designated bid room, or that DHL was prevented from doing so by 
GSA.  Finally, there is no evidence that after it became evident that 
the four boxes were separated from the envelopes during shipment, DHL, 
US Air Shuttle, or anyone else in the chain of custody made any 
attempts at identifying the sender or rightful owner of the boxes, or 
even made any efforts at contacting the intended recipient of the four 
boxes left behind at La Guardia Airport.  Had DHL or any of the other 
parties responsible for transporting and delivering the boxes done so, 
there appears to have been sufficient time for DHL to have timely 
delivered them to GSA prior to closing.  Accordingly, we think the 
record shows that it was the action (or inaction) of Staubach and its 
agents, not any oral advice from GSA, which was the paramount cause of 
the late receipt of Staubach's proposals.

Staubach also argues that the cover letters submitted with volume I of 
its proposals, together with the pricing information in that volume, 
contained sufficient information to permit GSA to evaluate the key 
elements of volumes II and III of the proposals, and maintains that 
GSA could have obtained any missing details through discussions.

Rejection of a proposal is proper where the initial proposal is so 
deficient that in essence no meaningful proposal was submitted, and to 
allow the omissions to be cured after the time set for receipt of 
initial proposals would be inconsistent with the late proposals 
clause.  Panasonic Communications & Sys. Co., B-239917, Oct. 10, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  para.  279 at 2.  As explained earlier, the RFP contained specific 
instructions requiring offerors to provide detailed information in 
their technical (volume II) and key personnel (volume III) proposals, 
which represented a significant portion of the technical evaluation of 
proposals.  Indeed, according to the protester's own description, its 
response to the technical and key personnel areas was so voluminous 
that it required packaging in four boxes.  While the cover letters 
Staubach submitted with each volume I arguably summarized key points 
of the missing proposals, the brief, 1-page letters clearly do not 
contain the level of detail required by the RFP and cannot reasonably 
be viewed as a meaningful response to the RFP's technical and key 
personnel requirement.  Staubach's failure to submit those volumes 
thus was a material omission, and to permit Staubach to submit the 
missing volumes after closing would be tantamount to improperly 
allowing the submission of a late proposal.  RMS Indus., B-245539, 
Dec. 9, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  528 at 3.

Finally, the protester argues that GSA should consider its late 
proposal because, since the four missing boxes were secured at the La 
Guardia Airport Lost and Found until their delivery on February 28, 
Staubach could not have altered its proposals during that time to gain 
a competitive advantage over other offerors.  

The late proposal rules alleviate confusion, assure equal treatment of 
all offerors, and prevent one offeror from obtaining any unfair 
competitive advantage that might accrue where an offeror is permitted 
to submit a proposal later than the deadline set for all competitors.  
The Marquardt Co., B-224289, Dec. 9, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  660 at 4.  While 
the government's application of the late proposal rules sometimes may 
seem harsh, and the government may lose the benefit of proposals that 
offer terms more advantageous than those that were timely received, 
protecting the integrity of the procurement process by ensuring that 
fair and impartial treatment is guaranteed and maintaining confidence 
in the competitive system are of greater importance than the possible 
advantage to be gained by considering a late proposal in a single 
procurement.  Phoenix Research Group, Inc., B-240840, Dec. 21, 1990, 
90-2 CPD  para.  514 at 5.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although there is no dispute that this telephone conversation took 
place, the parties' recollection of its content differs.  For 
instance, the GSA bid room employee who responded to Mr. Downes's 
telephone inquiry disputes that anyone specifically inquired whether 
four boxes and four envelopes had been delivered.  In addition, prior 
to calling the bid room, Mr. Downes states that he telephoned the 
contracting officer who, after learning that Staubach's proposals were 
packaged in four separate envelopes and four boxes, allegedly said 
that he was "curious" and that "maybe he would go to the bid room and 
check."  The contracting officer does not recall ever telling Mr. 
Downes or any other offeror that called that day that he was "curious" 
about their submission or that he would check the bid room to verify 
that a proposal had been received.  As is evident from our discussion 
below, this apparent disagreement concerning the details of these 
conversations is immaterial to our decision. 

2. In its initial protest letter to our Office, the protester argued 
that upon signing the receipt for Staubach's proposals, GSA's bid room 
employees improperly failed to verify that they had indeed received 
all eight pieces of correspondence, suggesting that the bid room staff 
was negligent in its duties.  The only document in the record 
evidencing receipt of Staubach's proposals is a DHL "Shipment 
Airwaybill" signed by a GSA bid room employee.  That document merely 
indicates that a package was delivered to GSA, and contrary to 
Staubach's suggestion, does not indicate the weight or quantity of the 
items delivered.  In any event, in its comments on the agency report, 
the protester abandoned its claim that the GSA bid room employees 
signed for eight pieces of correspondence.