TITLE:  Weeks Marine, Inc., B-292758, October 16, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292758
DATE:  October 16, 2003
**********************************************************************
Weeks Marine, Inc., B-292758, October 16, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Weeks Marine, Inc.
File:            B-292758
Date:              October 16, 2003
Timothy A. Sullivan, Esq., Starfield & Payne, for the protester.
Daniel C. Sauls, Esq., and Douglas L. Hilleboe, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, for Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, an intervenor.
Joseph J. Cox, Esq., Lorraine C. Lee, Esq., and Rita M. Fang, Esq., U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.
Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Agency reasonably accepted late bid where the paramount cause of the late
receipt was affirmative misdirection by the agency and where consideration
of the late bid did not compromise the integrity of the competitive
procurement system.
    
DECISION
    
Weeks Marine, Inc. protests the decision by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to accept the apparent low bid submitted by Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Company under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW51-03-B-0013, issued
for the Maintenance Dredging Shinnecock Inlet Interim Beach Nourishment
Project. Weeks, the second low bidder, argues that the bid submitted by
Great Lakes was late and should have been rejected because it did not
qualify under any of the exceptions to the late bidding rules.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The IFB provided that sealed bids were due in original, with one copy, *at
the place specified in Item 8 by 11:00 AM local time* on August 22,
2003.[1]  IFB, Standard Form
1442, Item 13.A.  Item 8 designated the place for receipt of bids as:
    
OPS-Support-MGT Support
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1934
New York, NY 10278. 
    
The IFB also incorporated, by reference, Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)
S: 52.214-7, entitled *Late submissions, modifications, and withdrawals of
bids,* which, as relevant here, states:
    
Any bid, modification, or withdrawal received at the Government office
designated in the IFB after the exact time specified for receipt of bids
is *late* and will not be considered unless it is received before award is
made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late bid would
not unduly delay the acquisition; and*

    
. . . .
    
(ii) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the
Government installation designated for receipt of bids and was under the
Government*s control prior to the time set for receipt of bids.  
    
As explained by the agency, on the day scheduled for bid opening,
approximately
10 minutes before the 11:00 a.m. bid opening time, Great Lakes*
representative, Andrew Inglis, arrived on the 19th floor of 26 Federal
Plaza, with Great Lakes* bid in hand.  Unable to immediately locate Room
1934, at approximately 10:55, Mr. Inglis obtained directions to Room 1934
from Jovencio Cariaga (a Corps employee) who was standing in the hallway. 
See Declaration of Andrew Inglis, Aug. 24, 2003; Contracting Officer*s
Report (*CO Report*), Tab C, Memorandum for the Record by Jovencio
Cariaga, Aug. 22, 2003. 
    
Based on Mr. Cariaga*s directions, Mr. Inglis proceeded to Room 1934,
which is also identified as Room 1936 (number 1934 is listed on top of the
doorframe, while number 1936 appears at the side of the doorframe).  In
Room 1934/1936, Mr. Inglis encountered two Corps employees (Milagros
Alexoudis and Wedad Youssef) and told them that he had a bid to deliver to
Room 1934.  Ms. Alexoudis observed
Mr. Inglis holding what appeared to be a bid package and informed him that
bids are usually received on the 18th floor and that he should go there to
deliver his package.  Ms. Youssef also told Mr. Inglis that he should go
to the 18th floor.  Ms. Alexoudis noted the time of the conversation to be
approximately 10:55 a.m.  See Inglis Declaration, supra; CO Report, Tab D,
Memorandum for the Record by Milagros Alexoudis, Aug. 22, 2003, and Tab E,
statement of Wedad Youssef, Aug. 27, 2003.
    
As explained in his declaration, Mr. Inglis then proceeded immediately to
the 18th floor where he saw a sign indicating that the bid opening for the
Shinnecock project was in Room 1841.  Running down the hall, he located
Room 1841 and tried to open the door but found that it was locked.  After
knocking, someone opened the door and Mr. Inglis entered the room.    
    
In Room 1841, at exactly 11:00 am (according to the official bid opening
clock), Ina Ohrwashel, the bid opening officer for the Shinnecock project,
announced:  *It is now 11:00 and we shall proceed with the opening of
bids.*  CO Report at 2; CO Report, Tab I, Memorandum for the Record by Ina
J. Ohrwashel, Aug. 22, 2003.  Jesse Arrington, the Corps employee
responsible for collecting bids prior to bid opening, then closed and
locked the glass door to Room 1841.  When he closed the door, he did not
see anyone in the hallway.  CO Report, Tab F, Statement of Jesse
Arrington, Aug. 28, 2003.  Two other Corps employees who were in the bid
opening room (Rita Fang and Robert Greco) likewise did not see anyone
behind the door at that time.  See CO Report, Tab G, Declaration of Rita
Fang, Assistant District Counsel, Aug. 29, 2003, and Tab H, Statement of
Robert Greco, Aug. 27, 2003.   
    
Ms. Ohrwashel then opened the bid from Weeks, the only bid then received,
and began to read the 18 line items of the bid.[2]  At 11:01, after Ms.
Ohrwashel had read approximately three of the line items, Mr. Inglis
knocked on the door of Room 1841.  See CO Report, Tab I, Memorandum for
the Record by Ina J. Ohrwashel, supra.  Someone in the audience opened the
door and, upon entering the room, Mr. Inglis announced that he had a bid
and handed Great Lakes* bid to Rita Fang, who took custody of the bid and
recorded it as received at 11:01.  She noted that Mr. Inglis appeared to
be out of breath when he arrived and that the envelope, which contained
Great Lakes* bid, was completely sealed.  See CO Report, Tab G, Fang
Declaration, supra.  Because it was believed that Great Lakes* bid was
late due to no fault of the government, it was not opened and read into
the record.  See CO Report at 2; CO Report, Tab G, Fang Declaration,
supra.
    
After the bid opening, however, the agency examined the solicitation and
discovered that Block 8 mistakenly instructed bidders to deliver their
bids to Room 1934.  The contracting officer, in consultation with counsel
and other agency personnel, determined that Great Lakes* bid was late due
to the error contained in Block 8, noting that the bid was delivered in a
sealed envelope and that there was no evidence of tampering.  The agency
then opened Great Lakes* bid and read it into the record.[3]  Ms. Fang,
who reviewed the bid, further noted that there were no erasures or
corrections and that the handwriting, which was in blue marker, appeared
to be the same throughout.  See CO Report at 2, 6; CO Report, Tab G, Fang
Declaration, supra.
    
Based on these circumstances, the protester argues that Great Lakes* bid
was late and should not have been accepted.  As a general matter, bidders
are responsible for ensuring that their bids are received at the proper
place at the proper time, and late bids, generally, must be rejected.  A
bid is late if it is received at the government office designated in the
IFB after the exact time specified for the receipt of bids.  See FAR S:S:
14.304(b)(1), 52.214-7(b)(1).  As set forth in the FAR provision
incorporated in the IFB, a late bid may be accepted if it was received at
the government installation designated for receipt of bids and was under
the agency*s control, prior to the time set for receipt of bids.  See FAR
S: 52.214-7(b)(1)(ii).
    
Great Lakes argues that its bid was not late because it was timely
delivered to the room designated in the IFB for receipt of bids. 
Literally applying the above regulations, however, Great Lakes* bid was
late because it was not timely received by the agency.  Although not
defined by regulation, in order for the government to *receive* a bid, a
bidder must relinquish control of the bid to the government (i.e., by
transferring it to an appropriate official or by placing it in officially
designated location for the submission of bids such as a bid depository
box).  See George W. Kane, Inc., B-245382.2, Feb. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD P: 143
at 3-4 (bid untimely where it was placed on desk in bid opening room 1
minute before bid opening).  While the record here clearly reflects that
Mr. Inglis timely arrived at the room designated in the IFB for receipt of
bids, the record also reflects that he did not relinquish control of the
bid to the government until after the time set for receipt of bids; thus,
the bid was not timely *received,* making it late. 
    
Similarly, Great Lakes* bid would not be acceptable under a literal
application of the exception to the late bid provisions noted above.  For
the same reason the bid was late (Mr. Inglis had not relinquished control
of Great Lakes* bid prior to the time of bid opening), the bid was not
*received* at the government installation designated for receipt of bids
prior to the time set for receipt of bids.  Consequently, the bid was also
not in the government*s control prior to the time of bid opening.      
    
A strict application of the late bid regulations, however, is not
appropriate in this case.  In various instances we have found late bids
acceptable, notwithstanding the fact that the regulations at issue did not
provide for acceptance of the bid.  Our holdings in these cases stem from
the principle that the late bid rules should not be used to reject a bid
where doing so would contravene the intent and spirit of the competitive
system.  See Adirondack Constr. Corp., B-280015.2, Aug. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD
P: 55 at 3 (noting that while the relevant FAR provision explicitly
applied to government mishandling after receipt at the government
installation, we have applied the same analysis even if the mishandling
occurred prior to actual receipt of the bid); AABLE Tank Servs., Inc.,
B-273010, Nov. 12, 1996, 96-2 CPD P: 180 (holding that a late hand-carried
bid was acceptable even though FAR provisions did not expressly apply to
hand-carried bids); Kelton Contracting, Inc., B-262255, Dec. 12, 1995,
95-2 CPD P: 254 at 3. 
    
As we stated in AABLE:
    
The purpose of the rules governing the consideration of late bids is to
insure for the Government the benefits of the maximum of legitimate
competition, not to give one bidder a wholly unmerited advantage over
another by over-technical application of the rules. 
    
AABLE Tank Servs., Inc., supra, at 4 (quoting Hydro Fitting Mfg. Corp.,
B-183438, June 2, 1975, 75-1 CPD P: 331 at 6). 
    
When evaluating the acceptability of a late bid outside the strict
confines of the late bid regulations, we are guided by the general
principle that where a bidder has done all it could and should to fulfill
its responsibility, it should not suffer if the bid is untimely because
the government failed in its own responsibility, so long as acceptance of
the bid would not cast doubt on the integrity of the bidding process.  See
Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc., B-274885, Jan. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD P: 16 at
3-4.  Accordingly, we have found late bids acceptable where the
government*s affirmative misdirection*such as erroneous solicitation
instructions--was the paramount cause of a bidder*s untimely delivery of
its bid since an agency has an affirmative duty to establish procedures
for the timely receipt of bids.  See id.; Select, Inc., B-245820.2, Jan.
3, 1992, 92-1 CPD P: 22 at 4.
    
In this case, the IFB listed the wrong room for delivery of bids.  This
error, which was attributable solely to the government, directly resulted
in Great Lakes submitting its bid 1 minute late.  Had the government
provided for the receipt of bids in the room identified in the IFB, there
is no doubt that Great Lakes* bid would have been timely; the record
clearly demonstrates that Great Lakes was at the room designated for
receipt of bids approximately 5 minutes in advance of the time set for bid
opening.  But, because Great Lakes was required to make its way from the
designated bid opening room to the actual bid opening room, the government
effectively caused Great Lakes* bid to be received late.  As a
consequence, the misdirection by the agency was the paramount cause of
Great Lakes* untimely submission of its bid.      
    
Relying principally on our decision in Adirondack Constr. Corp., supra,
the protester argues that the paramount cause of Great Lakes* late bid was
not misdirection by the government, but rather, Great Lakes* failure to
leave sufficient time before bid opening to submit its bid.  The protester
also asserts that Great Lakes* use of an individual who was not familiar
with the agency*s official bid opening room was negligent, and suggests
that this contributed to the bid*s late receipt by the government.  These
arguments, however, are without merit. 
    
In Adirondack, we held that an agency properly rejected a late bid where
the bidder, due to an improper assumption concerning the official bid
opening clock, allowed less than 1 minute to reach the bid opening room
and thus failed to notice signs posted by the agency changing the bid
opening room to the room next door.  In this case, however, the record
clearly reflects that 5 minutes before bids were due, Great Lakes had
arrived at the place designated for the receipt of bids and there were no
signs directing bidders to another room.  See Saint Louis Tuckpointing and
Painting, Co., Inc., B-212351.2, Nov. 18, 1983, 83-2 CPD P: 588 at 2-3
(holding that paramount cause for late delivery of bid was the agency*s
failure to adequately direct bidders once they arrived at the general
location since bidder arrived at the general location for delivery of bids
*with ample time*--5 minutes before bid opening*to deliver its bid). 
Because Great Lakes had arrived at the room designated in the IFB for
receipt of bids with sufficient time to submit its bid, the agency*s
designation of the wrong room in the IFB was the paramount cause for the
late delivery of its bid.
    
Nor do we believe that Great Lakes contributed to the lateness of its bid
by using an individual who purportedly was not familiar with the agency*s
usual bid opening procedures.  All bidders, regardless of their knowledge
of an agency*s internal operating procedures, should be able to reasonably
rely on the bid delivery instructions in an IFB.  To hold otherwise would
be inconsistent with the fundamental notion that bidders must be treated
equally by a procuring activity.
    
As a final matter, it does not appear that accepting Great Lakes* bid
compromised the integrity of the procurement.  When addressing this issue,
the operative question is whether the late bidder gained an unfair
competitive advantage over other bidders as a result of having submitted
its bid late.  See Brazos Roofing, Inc., B-275113,
Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD P: 43 at 5.  In this regard, the protester
emphasizes the fact that the agency did not receive Great Lakes* bid until
after approximately three of the protester*s 18 bid line items had been
disclosed.  According to the protester, this provided Great Lakes with the
opportunity to decide not to furnish the bid after bid opening.  The
protester*s concern, however, is tempered by the fact that the position in
which Great Lakes was placed resulted from the actions of Corps personnel
and was not by its own design or choosing. 
    
Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Inglis, who
delivered Great Lakes* bid, actually heard the prices when they were
read.  Mr. Inglis had only a few minutes to go from the the 19th floor to
the actual bid opening room on the 18th floor; when he arrived, Corps
personnel noted that he appeared hurried and out of breath.  Agency
personnel also indicated that they did not see anyone outside the bid
opening room when the contracting officer called time.  Under these
circumstances, Mr. Inglis* statement in his declaration that he did not
hear any prices being read prior to handing Great Lakes* bid to the
agency, seems credible.  
    
The protester also contends that the bid process was compromised because
Great Lakes had the opportunity to submit a different, albeit unaltered,
bid (the protester states that it is not uncommon for bidders to carry
more than one bid package to a bid opening in order to make last minute
changes in their bids without having to physically alter their prices). 
Putting aside the fact that there is no evidence suggesting that Mr.
Inglis actually overheard the reading of Weeks* line items and the fact
that, of the 18 line items bid, only some three had been read when Great
Lakes* bid was submitted, there is simply no evidence (as the protester
itself admits, see Protester*s Comments, Sept. 22, 2003, at 6) that Great
Lakes substituted one bid package for another.
    
While the record demonstrates that Great Lakes submitted its bid
approximately
1 minute after bid opening, there is no evidence suggesting that Great
Lakes heard any of the protester*s prices, nor is there any evidence that
Great Lakes tampered with its bid (its bid package was sealed when
submitted and there was no evidence that any of the line items had been
altered).  Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the
contracting officer to conclude that acceptance of Great Lakes* bid did
not compromise the integrity of the bidding process.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    
    
    
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] The original date for bid opening, August 18, 2003, was changed by
amendment.  See IFB, amend. No. 001.
[2] The IFB included a total of 18 separate line items, which were divided
equally between two schedules (A and B).  Each schedule included a base
item with two separate line items and two options.  The first option
included five separate line items and the second option included two line
items. 
[3] Great Lakes was the apparent low bidder, with a total price for
schedule A (including options) of $7,492,580 and a total price of
$11,822,850 for Schedule B (including options).  Great Lakes* combined
price, when schedules A and B were added together, was $19,315,430. 
Weeks, the second low bidder, submitted a total price for Schedule A
(including options) of $10,375,650 and a total price of $13,115,650 for
Schedule B (including options).  Weeks* combined price was $23,491,300. 
See CO Report, Tab K, Great Lakes* bid, Tab L, Weeks* bid, Tab M, Abstract
of Bids.