TITLE:   Integrated Support Systems inc, B-283137.2, September 10, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283137.2
DATE:  September 10, 1999
**********************************************************************
Integrated Support Systems inc, B-283137.2, September 10, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Integrated Support Systems inc

File: B-283137.2

Date: September 10, 1999

Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., and James S. DelSordo, Esq., Williams Mullen Clark
& Dobbins, for the protester.

Terry Hart Lee, Esq., and Stacia D. LeBlanc, Esq., Department of Commerce,
for the agency.

Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably rejected protester's hand-delivered proposal as late where
the protester significantly contributed to the late receipt of the proposal
by failing to allow sufficient time for timely delivery of the proposal.

DECISION

Integrated Support Systems inc (ISSi) protests the rejection of its proposal
under request for proposals (RFP) No. 52-SAAA-9-00010, issued by the
Department of Commerce for the acquisition of Commerce Information
Technology Services. ISSi objects to Commerce's rejection of its proposal as
late because the agency allegedly failed to inform ISSi of the correct
location for hand-delivery of its proposal.

We deny the protest. [1]

The RFP stated the time for receipt of proposals as March 26, 1999, at 3
p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Agency Report, exh. A, Instructions to
Prospective Offerors. The RFP provided that for proposals that are
hand-carried or sent by courier service "the Offeror assumes full
responsibility for ensuring that the offer is received at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW (Use 15th Street
entrance), Office of Security/Courier Service Center/Room 1874, Washington,
DC 20230 by 3:00 P.M. EST." RFP sect. L.5. Offerors were also informed that the
building was a "secure building" and all but uniformed couriers were
required to deliver packages to the 15th Street entrance for the Office of
Security/Courier Service Center. Id. The RFP incorporated Federal
Acquisition Regulation sect. 52.215-1, Intructions to Offerors--Competitive
Acquisition (Oct 1997), which, among other things, provided that proposals
received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time
specified for receipt of offers would generally be rejected. [2]

On March 26, ISSi's president attempted to hand-deliver ISSi's proposal. He
states that he arrived at a 15th Street entrance to the Department of
Commerce building at precisely 2:57 p.m., but was informed that this was not
the correct entrance for delivery of proposals to the Courier Service
Center. Agency Report, exh. D, Letter from the Protester to the Contracting
Officer (June 3, 1999). The protester's president proceeded to the other
15th Street entrance, which is marked "Courier Entrance," but arrived after
3 p.m. [3] An agency contract specialist was present in room 1874 from 2:30
to 3 p.m.; at 3 p.m. the contract specialist declared that time for receipt
of proposals had ended and exited the room at about 3:01 p.m. ISSi's
proposal was not delivered prior to the contract specialist leaving room
1874. Agency Report, Declaration of Contract Specialist, para. 8. The agency
rejected ISSi's proposal as late, and this protest followed.

It is an offeror's responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper
place at the proper time, and late delivery generally requires rejection of
the proposal. FAR sect. 15.208; The Staubach Co., B-276486, May 19, 1997, 97-1
CPD para. 190 at 3. However, a hand-carried proposal that arrives late may be
considered if improper government action was the paramount cause for the
late submission, and where consideration of the proposal would not
compromise the integrity of the competitive process. Caddell Constr. Co.,
Inc., B-280405, Aug. 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 50 at 6. Improper government
action in this context is affirmative action that makes it impossible for
the offeror to deliver the proposal on time. Id. Even in cases where the
late receipt may have been caused, in part, by erroneous government action,
a late proposal should not be considered if the offeror significantly
contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its
responsibility to deliver a hand-carried proposal to the proper place by the
proper time. Id.; Adirondack Constr. Corp., B-280015.2, Aug. 25, 1998, 98-2
CPD para. 55 at 6.

There is no dispute here that ISSi's proposal was late. Instead, ISSi
contends that the sole cause of the proposal's untimely receipt was the
ambiguous RFP instructions as to where to hand-deliver proposals. Protest at
4-5; Comments at 4. However, even assuming that the RFP was not as clear as
it could have been, given the two 15th Street entrances, the record
demonstrates that the protester significantly contributed to the late
receipt of its proposal by failing to allow sufficient time to hand-deliver
its proposal. By the protester's own admission, ISSi's president arrived at
the first 15th Street entrance a mere 3 minutes before the time set for
receipt of proposals. Agency Report, exh. D, Letter from the Protester to
the Contracting Officer (June 3, 1999). We have found that an offeror
significantly contributed to the late receipt of its proposal where it
failed to allow sufficient time to permit a timely submission. See Wyatt and
Assocs., B-243349, July 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 5 at 2-3 (arrival at building
entrance 10 minutes before the time set for reciept of proposals
signficantly contributed to the late receipt of the offeror's proposal); see
also Monthei Mechanical, Inc., B-216624, Dec. 17, 1984, 84-2 CPD para. 675 at 3
(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). We cannot
say that improper action by the agency was the paramount cause of the late
receipt of ISSi's proposal where the protester failed to allow suffient time
to ensure the timely delivery of its proposal. Accordingly, we conclude that
the agency reasonably rejected ISSi's late-delivered proposal.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. This decision is made under our express option procedures. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.10 (1999).

2. The RFP also incorporated the now expired FAR sect. 52.215-10 (Dec. 1989),
which contained much the same language in this respect.

3. The parties disagree as to how late the proposal was delivered, a
question we need not resolve; all that matters here is that the propsoal was
delivered late.