BNUMBER:  B-281067 
DATE:  November 30, 1998
TITLE: Comspace Corporation, B-281067, November 30, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Comspace Corporation

File:     B-281067

Date:November 30, 1998

Irving Becker for the protester.
Walter R. Pierce, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.
Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected as late a proposal sent by Express Mail 1 
working day prior to the specified due date in an envelope designating 
an incorrect addressee, where the proposal was delivered to the 
government installation prior to closing time, but reached the 
proposal opening room late because it was routed by routine mail 
processing through the designated addressee.

DECISION

Comspace Corporation protests the rejection of its proposal as late by 
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under request for proposals (RFP) 
No. SPO970-97-R-X113, issued by the Defense Supply Center Columbus 
(DSCC), a DLA field activity, for certain dynamic microphones.

We deny the protest.  

The RFP required that sealed offers be submitted by 1 p.m. on Monday, 
September 15, 1997, and that offers be addressed to: 

     DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER COLUMBUS
     ATTN:  DSCC-PBAA (Bid Opening RM B130, Bldg 20)
     3990 E. BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 16653
     COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216-5009

On Friday, September 12, Comspace mailed its proposal by United States 
Postal Service Express Mail-Post Office to Addressee, in a package 
addressed as follows:

     DSCC-ATTN:  DSCC-PCCCGHX-V. Savory 
     3990 E. Broad St.-POB 16704
     Columbus, Ohio 43216-5010
     ---------------------------
     Sol. SPO970-97-R-X113
     due 9/15/97 - Microphone, Dynamic

The RFP at section L incorporated by reference Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) clauses 52.215-9 (July 1995) and 52.215-10 (Aug. 
1996).  FAR clause 52.215-9 advises, among other things, that 
proposals must be submitted in sealed envelopes or packages addressed 
to the office specified in the solicitation, showing the time and date 
specified for receipt.  Clause 52.215-10 provides, among other things, 
that any proposal received at the office designated in the 
solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals 
will not be considered unless it is received before award is made and, 
if it was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day 
Service-Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5 p.m. at the place 
of mailing 2 working days prior to the date specified for receipt of 
proposals.    

Comspace's proposal arrived in the DSCC mailroom at 8:30 a.m. on 
September 15, and was forwarded to the Commodities Application Group 
for delivery to the person designated as the addressee on the mailing 
label.  Consequently, the proposal did not arrive in the bid opening 
room before the 1 p.m. deadline.  After the contract was awarded to 
Sonetronics Inc. on September 9, 1998, the contracting officer 
notified Comspace that its proposal was received late and was not 
considered for award, and this protest followed.[1]

An offeror has the responsibility to assure timely arrival of its 
proposal and must bear the responsibility for its late arrival unless 
a specific exception permitting the consideration of a late proposal 
is met.  Hubbs-Sea World Research Inst., B-210579, Mar. 1, 1983, 83-1 
CPD  para.  193 at 2.  As provided in the instant RFP, a late proposal may 
be considered under appropriate circumstances if it was sent by 
express mail not later than 2 working days before the closing date for 
receipt of proposals.  A  late proposal may also be considered if it 
is determined that late receipt was due solely to government 
mishandling after timely receipt at the government installation.  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.  Secure Applications, Inc., B-261885, Oct. 26, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  190 at 2-3.

Here, because Comspace's proposal was mailed only 1 working day before 
the closing date, on the Friday preceding the Monday on which it was 
due, it does not fall under the 2 working day express mail exception.  
Comspace's proposal also does not fall within the government 
mishandling exception because Comspace's own actions substantially 
contributed to the late arrival of its proposal at the designated 
location.  Comspace failed to indicate the time specified in the RFP 
for receipt or to address its proposal package to the bid opening 
room, as required by the RFP; instead, Comspace misaddressed the 
proposal to an inappropriate individual.  A proposal that is 
misaddressed, and as a result arrives at the proper location late 
because it was routed through the routine mail processing system to 
the wrong location, is not considered to be late as the result of 
government mishandling.  Materials Sciences Corp., B-212590, Dec. 27, 
1983, 84-1 CPD  para.  27 at 3.[2]

Comspace takes the position that its proposal was not late, since it 
was "timely received at the government agency."  Protester's Comments 
at 1.  Contrary to Comspace's understanding, the arrival of a proposal 
at the government installation is not equivalent to the arrival in the 
room designated in the RFP for opening.  The RFP requires that 
proposals be received at the designated room by the established time.  
Proposals are properly rejected as late where they are delivered to an 
intermediary stop prior to the designated time, but received late at 
the specified location.  See  Motorola, Inc., B-219592, July 24, 1985, 
85-2 CPD  para.  84 at 2; Chemical Waste Management, Inc., B-215382, Sept. 
10, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  274 at 2.  Since receipt at the mail depot does 
not constitute receipt at the designated location, the agency properly 
treated Comspace's proposal as late. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The record does not indicate why contract award occurred almost a 
full year after the proposal submission date.

2. Comspace also argues that the fact that agency personnel opened the 
package containing its proposal "indicates acceptance of the bid."  
Protester's Comments at 1.  This argument is without legal merit; even 
where a proposal has been opened and initially accepted, it may later 
be rejected if further analysis of the circumstances reveals that the 
proposal was in fact received late.  See MC II Gov't Sys. and Servs., 
Inc, B-258089, Dec. 15, 1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  242 at 4.