BNUMBER:  B-280015.2 
DATE:  August 25, 1998
TITLE: Adirondack Construction Corporation, B-280015.2, August 25,
1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Adirondack Construction Corporation

File:     B-280015.2

Date:August 25, 1998

David G. Anderson, Esq., Couch, White, Brenner, Howard & Feigenbaum, 
for the protester.
Walter G. Breakell, Esq., Breakell & Couch, for Charles A. Gaetano 
Construction Corp., an intervenor.
Joseph J. Cox, Esq., and Madeline Shay, Esq., Department of the Army, 
for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of rejection of late bid is denied where, while the agency 
changed the bid opening room less than 1 hour before bid opening, the 
agency reasonably determined that the bidder's actions significantly 
contributed to the late receipt of the bid. 

DECISION

Adirondack Construction Corporation protests the rejection of its late 
bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACA51-98-B-0014, issued by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for renovation of a building in 
Rome, New York.  Adirondack contends that actions by the agency were 
the paramount cause for the late receipt of Adirondack's bid.

We deny the protest.

The IFB provided that "[s]ealed offers in original and 2 copies to 
perform the work required are due at the place specified in Item 8 by 
1400 hour[s], local time [on May 6, 1998]."  IFB, Standard Form 1442, 
Item 13.A.  Item 8 designated the place for receipt of bids as NYDUS 
Army Corps of Engineers, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1843, New York, New 
York.  Adirondack's representative (Mr. D) arrived at 26 Federal Plaza 
and located room 1843 approximately 1.5 hours before the 2 p.m. bid 
opening time.
  
Room 1843 is a large room that contains some 20 modular cubicles 
constructed of partial walls approximately 5 feet in height.  
According to affidavits submitted by Mr. D, after entering the room, 
he observed an empty desk to the left of the entrance.  He states that 
he asked a government employee near this desk "if this was the bid 
opening room for this job," and the employee responded that it was.  
Mr. D's Affidavit, June 17, 1998, at 1.  When Mr. D asked for the 
person listed in the IFB as the one to contact for information, the 
employee reportedly stated that she was not in, and that everyone was 
at lunch.  Referring to the desk, Mr. D states that he asked if "this 
was where we handed in the bids," and the employee answered that it 
was.  Id. at 2.  

According to the agency, there are three clocks in room 1843, all of 
which registered different times.  The clock that Mr. D apparently saw 
was on a pillar (approximately 20 feet away) above the cubicle walls.  
He states that he noted the time on that clock as 12:40 p.m. and 
synchronized his watch with it.[1]  As determined after bid opening, 
this clock was approximately 3 minutes slower than the clock that was 
actually used to determine the time for bid opening.  Mr. D then went 
to a public telephone outside the restrooms, which were located in an 
alcove off of an adjacent corridor, to call Adirondack's home office 
to obtain prices to complete the bid forms.  During this first 
telephone call to his office, Mr. D advised home office personnel of 
his distance from the room designated for receipt of bids (room 1843) 
and of the time on the clock he had seen in that room.[2]  He 
continued making and receiving telephone calls until shortly before 2 
p.m.

Unbeknownst to Mr. D, at 1 p.m., the bid opening official (who was 
also the person listed in the IFB as the contact for information) 
learned that room 1841, a room adjacent to room 1843 that the agency 
had intended to use for the actual opening of bids, would not be 
available at 2 p.m.  She then reserved another room (1802) located in 
the same corridor as the telephone/restroom alcove where Mr. D was 
making his calls, approximately 36 feet away from the telephone and 
approximately 80 feet away from room 1843.  The bid recorder then made 
three signs stating that bid opening for this solicitation would be in 
room 1802 and, at some point between 1:30 and 1:45 p.m., the recorder 
posted the signs outside rooms 1843 and 1841; at 1:45, the bid 
recorder accompanied the bid opening official to room 1802.  

Another contracting office employee volunteered to stand in the 
hallway near the telephone/restroom alcove to direct bidders to room 
1802.  At 1:58 p.m., according to the clock in room 1802,  the bid 
opening official announced that the time scheduled for bid opening was 
approaching and that any hand-carried bids should then be turned in.  
She advised those in attendance that hand-delivered bids submitted 
after 2 p.m. would be late and not accepted for consideration.  
Shortly after this announcement was made, representatives of two 
contractors (but not the protester) entered the room and turned in 
their bids. 

According to the telephone company billing records, Mr. D received a 
telephone call from his home office at 1:55 p.m., which lasted 4.8 
minutes.  He states that, during this call, he obtained the final 
figures necessary to complete the bid forms, filled them in and double 
checked them.  Based on what he believed to be the time indicated on 
the room 1843 pillar clock, Mr. D believed he finished the call with 
some 4 minutes to spare.  By the clock in room 1802, however, he had 
less than 1 minute remaining before the 2 p.m. bid opening time.  Mr. 
D started toward room 1843 and was stopped by the volunteer employee, 
who informed Mr. D of the room change and directed him to room 1802.  
Mr. D then ran to room 1802.  It was 2 p.m. on the clock in room 1802, 
after the bid opening official had announced that it was time for bid 
opening, that Mr. D arrived and submitted his bid.  The bid opening 
official marked it as received 20 seconds after 2 p.m.  After all 
other bids and the government estimate were announced, the bid opening 
official opened Adirondack's bid and found that it was lower than any 
of the bids that had been submitted prior to 2 p.m.  Shortly after bid 
opening, Mr. D showed contracting officials that the clock in room 
1802 was approximately 3 minutes faster than the pillar clock he had 
looked at in room 1843.  The agency subsequently determined to reject 
Adirondack's late bid and Adirondack has protested this determination.

As a general rule, bidders are responsible for delivering their bids 
to the proper place at the proper time, and late delivery of a bid 
generally requires its rejection even if it is the lowest bid.  J.C.N. 
Constr. Co., Inc., B-270068, B-270068.2, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  42 
at 3; Aztec Dev. Co., B-256905, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  48 at 3.  A 
bid is late if it does not arrive at the office designated in the 
solicitation by the time specified.  Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec.  14.304-1; Aztec Dev. Co., supra.  Late hand-carried bids may 
be considered, if it is determined by the government that the late 
receipt was due primarily to government mishandling after receipt at 
the government installation.  FAR  sec.  14.304-1(a)(2), 52.214-7(a)(2); 
Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc., B-274885, Jan. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  16 
at 3; AABLE Tank Servs., Inc., B-273010, Nov. 12, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  180 
at 3.  While the FAR provision applies explicitly only to instances of 
mishandling of bids after receipt at the government installation, we 
have consistently applied the same analysis where, as here, the 
government mishandled a significant element of the bid receipt 
process, even if that occurred prior to actual receipt of the bid by 
the government.  See, e.g., PLAN-Industriefahrzeug GmbH & Co., 
B-254517, Dec. 23, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  338 at 2-3.

In determining relative responsibility for the late receipt of a bid, 
all of the circumstances surrounding its delivery should be considered 
to determine whether the bidder acted unreasonably.  See Dale Woods, 
B-209459, Apr. 13, 1983, 83-1 CPD  para.  396 at 3.  If the bidder 
significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably 
in fulfilling its responsibility for ensuring delivery to the 
designated place for receipt by the proper time, the late bid should 
generally not be accepted.  Aztec Dev. Co., supra, at 3-4; John 
Holtman and Sons, Inc., B-246062, Feb. 13, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  187 at 2.  
In particular, a bidder significantly contributed to the late delivery 
if it failed to allow enough time to permit a timely submission.  See 
Wyatt and Assocs., B-243349, July 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  5 at 2-3.

Under the governing language in the FAR, it is the procuring agency, 
in the first instance, which should make the determination concerning 
whether its action was the primary cause of the bid's late receipt.  
FAR  sec.  14.304-1(a)(2).  It is within the agency's discretion to 
determine that its actions were the primary cause of the late receipt 
(and therefore to accept the late bid) or, as here, to conclude that 
its actions did not constitute the primary cause (and therefore to 
reject the bid), and our Office will not substitute its judgment in 
this regard, but will review the reasonableness of the agency's 
determination.[3]

Here, Adirondack contends that the agency was the paramount cause of 
the late receipt of its bid because the agency changed the bid opening 
room without providing adequate notice to prospective bidders and 
because it used a clock to determine bid opening time which was set 3 
minutes faster than the clock in the original bid opening room.  The 
agency agrees that its change in bid opening rooms less than 1 hour 
before bid opening was improper.  Where the identified room is 
unavailable, the contracting officer should, at a minimum, telephone 
all known bidders and advise them of the change of location, or advise 
that bid opening would be postponed and issue a written amendment 
designating a new time and place.  Dale Woods, supra; Avantek, Inc., 
B-185248, Feb. 5, 1976, 76-1 CPD  para.  75 at 5.[4]  However, the agency 
contends that, under the circumstances of this case, the late bid 
should not be accepted because the protester significantly contributed 
to the late delivery.  We conclude that the agency's position is 
reasonable.

We recognize that the protester's representative initially took 
prudent steps by arriving 1.5 hours prior to bid opening time and 
locating the room designated for receipt of bids.  However, he then 
took action which significantly contributed to the late receipt of his 
bid, starting with his assumption that the clock he saw in the bid 
receipt room was the official clock for determination of the time for 
bid opening.  While he verified that the room was correct for bid 
opening, at the time he checked his watch, he did not seek to verify 
that the clock he saw was actually the official time.  This action was 
unreasonable in view of the fact that the room was large and filled 
with cubicles, any one of which could have contained the official 
clock for purposes of determining bid opening time.  Since the bid 
opening official's declaration of bid opening is determinative of 
lateness unless it is shown to be unreasonable under the 
circumstances, J.C. Kimberly Co., B-255018.2, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  
79 at 2, Mr. D had no basis to assume that the declaration of bid 
opening time would be based on the clock which he had observed in room 
1843.  Second, it does not appear that he was paying close attention 
to the time reflected on the clock in room 1843 or on his watch, 
ostensibly synchronized to that clock.[5]  Finally, and most 
importantly, he spent virtually the entire time leading up to 2 p.m. 
at (even when not on) the telephone and did not leave for the original 
bid opening room until very close to bid opening time.  He apparently 
never left the telephone alcove until he hung up from the last call 
with less than 1 minute to reach the original bid opening room.  As a 
result, he did not see the signs posted and thus did not learn of the 
room change until literally the last minute (according to the clock in 
the actual bid opening room), when he encountered the volunteer 
employee.  

In sum, we conclude that the agency reasonably determined that 
Adirondack, particularly by failing to ensure that it left sufficient 
time before bid opening to submit its bid, significantly contributed 
to the lateness of its bid.  See Monthei Mechanical, Inc., B-216624, 
Dec. 17, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  675 (where bidder left only 30 seconds 
before bid opening to submit its hand-carried bid, agency's movement 
of bid depository box, from customary place in building foyer to the 
actual bid opening room prior to bid opening, was not the paramount 
cause for the late submission of the bid).  The agency's actions here, 
though improper, were not the primary or paramount cause for the late 
receipt of the bid.  See Imperial Maintenance, B-218614, July 26, 
1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  94 at 3.  Accordingly, the agency's rejection of 
Adirondack's bid was reasonable. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. While Mr. D's two affidavits do not mention synchronizing his watch 
to the pillar clock, protester's counsel represents that Mr. D in fact 
did so. 

2. The record includes the telephone records for this and other 
telephone calls between Mr. D and his office.  While there is no 
direct way to correlate the time on the telephone records, the time on 
the clock in room 1843 that Mr. D had observed, and the time on the 
clock in room 1802 where bids were actually opened, it appears that 
the time on the clock in room 1802 is substantially the same as that 
reflected in the telephone records.  

3. A key element in our review of the reasonableness of the agency's 
determination will be concern about whether acceptance of a late bid 
could cast doubt on the integrity of the sealed bidding process.  See, 
e.g., Pacific Tank Cleaning Servs., Inc. B-279111.2, July 1, 1998, 
98-2 CPD  para.       at 3-5 (in absence of acceptable evidence of timely 
receipt and subsequent agency control at the installation, discovery 
of bid well after bid opening was insufficient to justify agency 
determination that its mishandling was the paramount cause of late 
receipt).  In the case at hand, however, the agency's decision to 
reject the protester's late bid does not implicate the integrity of 
that process.

4. In this regard, the agency could have kept bid receipt in room 1843 
and simply moved bid opening to another place after the time for 
receipt had passed, it could have posted additional signs and 
personnel to better identify the new bid opening room, or it could 
have postponed bid opening to another day or a later time that day.  

5. For example, in his statement made the day of bid opening, Mr. D 
averred that the clock in room 1843 registered 12:40 p.m., and that he 
then walked to the telephone and advised his office of the time in 
room 1843.  The telephone billing records, however, indicate that this 
call took place at 12:26 p.m.  Similarly, Mr. D states that he 
received his last telephone call from the home office at 1:40 p.m.  
Since the telephone records show that this call lasted less than 5 
minutes, if his statement about when the call began were accurate, he 
would have had ample time to return to room 1843, learn of the change 
and reach room 1802.  If we assume that the telephone records are 
accurate at least as to the length of the call, his statement that his 
call was received at 1:40 p.m. thus casts doubt on the accuracy either 
of his watch or of his recollection of the time events occurred.