BNUMBER:  B-280984 
DATE:  December 16, 1998
TITLE: Valenzuela Engineering, Inc., B-280984, December 16, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Valenzuela Engineering, Inc.

File:     B-280984

Date:December 16, 1998

Jerry H. Valenzuela for the protester.
Clark J. Hulce, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.
Jeanne W. Isrin, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Proposal properly was rejected as late where it was received at the 
designated location 50 minutes after the closing time, and evidence 
does not support protester's contention that it was timely delivered 
to the installation and then conveyed to the contracting officer after 
the closing time due to government mishandling.

DECISION

Valenzuela Engineering, Inc. (VEI) protests the rejection of its 
proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
DACA05-98-R-0044, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for 
operation and maintenance of groundwater treatment systems at Tooele 
Army Depot, Utah, and Defense Depot Ogden, Utah. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price contract for preventive 
maintenance, calibration, servicing, corrective repairs, sampling and 
analysis, and engineering services for the groundwater treatment 
systems at the depots.  RFP  sec.  B, at B-1.  Hand-carried proposals were 
to be submitted by 11 a.m. on August 24, 1998 to the Plan Room, First 
Floor of the Army facility at 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California.  
RFP  sec.  L.3, at L-2.  VEI's proposal was not received in the Plan Room 
until approximately 11:50 a.m. on August 24.  The contracting officer 
thus rejected it as late.

VEI maintains that its proposal was delivered by Federal Express to 
the agency mailroom at 10:05 a.m., which should have allowed adequate 
time for the proposal to be conveyed by agency personnel to the Plan 
Room by 11 a.m.  VEI concludes that the late receipt of its proposal 
must have resulted from government mishandling, and that its proposal 
should be considered timely.

A late offer hand-carried by Federal Express or another commercial 
carrier may be considered only if it is shown that government 
mishandling, after timely receipt 
at the government installation, was the paramount cause of the late 
receipt.  Creighton & Creighton, Inc., B-227511, July 2, 1987, 87-2 
CPD  para.  11 at 2.  It follows that there can be no question of wrongful 
government action in delivering an offer to the designated location 
unless timely receipt at the installation first is established.  
J.C.N. Constr. Co., Inc., B-270068, B-270068.2, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
42 at 3.

VEI has not established that its proposal was delivered to the 
installation prior to the 11 a.m. closing time.  The agency reports 
that:  (1) VEI's proposal was delivered by a Federal Express van which 
arrived at its loading dock at approximately 11:28 a.m.; (2) following 
scanning by security guards, the proposal was handed over to agency 
mailroom personnel at 11:50 a.m.; (3) at that time the time (11:50 
a.m.) and date, as well as the initials of the mailroom supervisor, 
were handwritten on the proposal and it was delivered to the Plan 
Room.  The contract specialist states she had left the room by that 
time, but that, after receiving a telephone call at noon announcing 
the receipt of VEI's proposal, she went to the room and noted, based 
on the time/date inscription, that the proposal was late.  The agency 
has submitted a copy of the proposal cover with the annotated time, 
date, and initials of the supervisor, as well as supporting statements 
from the personnel involved,[1] and a security videotape which appears 
to support the time of receipt (the images are blurry, but the tape 
shows what appears to be a Federal Express truck arriving at 11:28).   

VEI has submitted as the sole evidence in support of its position 
Federal Express records stating that the proposal was delivered at 
10:05 a.m. on August 24, and an affadavit supporting the authenticity 
of those records.  However, VEI has not provided, and the record does 
not contain, any independent evidence corroborating the Federal 
Express records or casting doubt on the agency's records showing late 
receipt.[2]  In this regard, commercial carrier records may be 
considered in determining the time of delivery to a government 
installation only to corroborate relevant evidence, such as the agency 
time/date stamp, other documentary evidence in the possession of the 
agency, or statements by government personnel.  J.C.N. Constr. Co., 
Inc., supra.  Commercial carrier records, standing alone, may not 
serve to establish the time of delivery to the agency, since they are 
not evidence of receipt maintained or confirmed by the agency.  Id.; 
Hausted, Inc., B-257087, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  49 at 3-4.[3]  

We conclude that the record shows receipt of VEI's proposal at the 
installation after the 11 a.m. closing time, that there thus is no 
basis for finding government mishandling after receipt at the 
installation, and that the agency properly rejected VEI's proposal as 
late.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The mailroom employee identified by Federal Express records as the 
individual to whom Valenzuela's proposal was delivered states that the 
Federal Express delivery was late on August 24, about 1 hour later 
than the ordinary time of 10:30 a.m.  She signed for the delivery when 
it came in, but could not recall the exact time. 

2. Attached to one of the documents in the agency report was 
information, apparently obtained by agency officials investigating the 
protest, from the Federal Express on-line tracking system; it confirms 
Federal Express's record showing that the proposal was delivered at 
10:05 a.m.  The protester has argued that this attachment is an agency 
record, and that the agency's own records therefore show delivery at    
10:05 a.m, corroborating VEI's position.  However, it is clear that 
the information in question was not a record maintained by the agency, 
but a Federal Express record which was merely accessed by the agency.  
The agency cannot input data into the Federal Express database, and 
the database contains information unavailable to the agency, such as 
the time the proposal left its place of origin.

3. VEI also cites as corroborating evidence the agency's security 
videotape, noting that the tape shows three different individuals 
delivering packages to the mailroom during the time period 9:42 a.m. 
to 10:03 a.m.  This, VEI maintains, supports its position that its 
proposal was delivered at 10:05 a.m.  This argument is without merit.  
None of the three individuals can be identified as a Federal Express 
delivery person and, even if they could be so identified, there would 
be no way to confirm that any of them delivered VEI's, rather than 
another offeror's, proposal.