TITLE: B-299547, Northwest Heritage Consultants, May 10, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299547
DATE: May 10, 2007
******************************************************
B-299547, Northwest Heritage Consultants, May 10, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Northwest Heritage Consultants

   File: B-299547

   Date: May 10, 2007

   William S. Hanable, Northwest Heritage Consultants, for the protester.

   Sherry K. Kaswell, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of Interior,
   for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency properly declined to accept Architect-Engineer Qualifications
   Statements submitted after closing date for such submissions where there
   is no evidence that improper government action caused the United States
   Postal Service's failure to make timely delivery of the submissions to the
   agency.

   DECISION

   Northwest Heritage Consultants protests the Department of Interior,
   National Park Service (NPS) Pacific West Region's rejection as late of its
   Architect-Engineer (A-E) Qualifications Statements submitted in response
   to solicitations Nos. N8078070176, N8078070177 and N8078070178, issued by
   NPS for the acquisition of A-E services for historic preservation design
   services at regional offices in Oakland, Seattle, and Honolulu. Northwest
   argues that the agency should have accepted its submissions because the
   protester sent them by United States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail,
   and because the protester believes the USPS carrier attempted to deliver
   the submissions prior to the closing time for receipt.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   On November 17, 2006, NPS published three notices in FedBizOpps seeking
   Letters of Interest and A-E Qualifications Statements. Agency Report (AR),
   Tabs VIII A-C. The notices, as amended, required vendors to submit their
   responses by 2 p.m. on December 22, 2006. Responses were to be mailed or
   hand-carried to:

   National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office

   ATTN: Gary C. Harris

   1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700

   Oakland, CA 94607

   The following information was to be placed on the outside of the sealed
   envelope containing each response: the solicitation number/title; the due
   date; and the closing time. All three solicitations provided that late
   responses would be handled in accordance with the provisions of Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.208.

   By the December 22 closing time, the agency received numerous timely
   submissions in response to each of the three solicitations. No response
   was received from the protester.

   Five days later, on December 27, the contracting officer (CO) received a
   Federal Express (FEDEX) package from Northwest that did not identify, on
   the face of the envelope, the solicitation number or closing time. CO's
   Statement at 1. On December 28, Northwest sent an email to the CO
   inquiring about the status of its responses to the three solicitations.
   The CO states that he then examined the package, opened the envelope and
   discovered three submissions from Northwest. Id. By letters dated January
   8, 2007, the CO advised Northwest that its submissions in response to the
   three solicitations were received by NPS on December 27, which was after
   the date and time specified in the solicitations, and that the submissions
   would not be evaluated or considered for award. AR, Tab V, CO's Letters to
   the Protester.

   On January 10, Northwest sent an email to the contracting officer
   explaining that the FEDEX package was its second attempt to deliver its
   submissions to the agency. AR, Tab IV, Jan. 10 Email. The protester stated
   that an earlier package of submissions was sent by USPS Express Mail, and
   asserted that the USPS carrier attempted to deliver the submissions prior
   to the deadline, but found no one available to sign for the package. The
   protester included a copy of the USPS tracking record which indicated that
   the submissions were mailed on December 20, and stated, in its entirety,
   "Notice Left, December 22, 2006, 11:22a.m., Oakland, CA 94607." Protest,
   attach. 3. On the basis of this evidence, Northwest requested the CO to
   reconsider his decision to reject this submission as late.

   By letter dated March 5, 2007, the CO denied Northwest's request on the
   basis that there was insufficient acceptable evidence to establish that
   Northwest's submissions were received by the government prior to the date
   and time set for receipt of submissions. The CO explained that pursuant to
   FAR sect. 15.208, Northwest's submissions were late and could not be
   evaluated. AR, Tab III, Mar. 5 Letter at 2. The CO also explained that
   NPS's West Regional Office is attended,

   24 hours per day, by uniformed building security personnel stationed at
   the main entrance and lobby area where all USPS and FEDEX package
   deliveries are made. Northwest filed this protest with our Office on March
   13.

   DISCUSSION

   Northwest first argues that the agency should accept and evaluate its
   submissions because, in the protester's view, the USPS records show that
   delivery was attempted prior to the closing time, but could not be
   completed. Thus, the protester contends that the agency must have failed
   to make proper arrangements to receive submissions. The protester also
   argues that since its submissions were not proposals, but merely A-E
   Qualifications Statements--the evaluation of which are used only to
   qualify potential vendors for inclusion on a list for issuance of task
   orders at future dates--acceptance and evaluation of its submissions
   despite their late receipt causes no harm to other offerors.

   It is the responsibility of each firm to deliver its proposal (or here A-E
   Qualifications Statements) to the proper place at the proper time, and
   late delivery generally requires rejection of the submission. Sencland CDC
   Enters., B-252796, B-252797, July 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 36 at 3. Where
   late receipt results from the failure of a vendor to reasonably fulfill
   its responsibility for ensuring timely delivery to the specified location,
   the late offer may not be considered. Axtec Dev.Co., B-256905, July 28,
   1994, 94-2 CPD para. 48 at 3. An offer that arrives late may only be
   considered if it is shown that the paramount reason for late receipt was
   improper government action, and where consideration of the proposal would
   not compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement 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
   made it impossible for the offeror to deliver the proposal on time. Id.

   As an initial matter, the agency denies receiving or rejecting the
   Northwest submission package that was the subject of the alleged delivery
   attempt by the USPS carrier. Instead, NPS explains that it followed its
   standard procedure for receipt and acceptance of proposals on December 22,
   2006. In this regard, since the designated installation is a secured
   facility manned by security personnel on a 24-hour basis, deliveries
   entering the building lobby are stopped at the security desk, while the
   guard calls the NPS mailroom to advise that a package had arrived, and
   needs to be retrieved. CO's Statement at 3. If mailroom personnel are not
   available, the practice is for building security personnel to call the
   contracting and general services offices directly.

   Moreover, the agency provided a declaration from the security guard who
   covered the post on the date and time in question, and the guard states
   that no notice of an attempted delivery was left by the USPS on that date,
   and that there were no delivery problems that day. Declaration of Security
   Guard, Apr. 11, 2007 . In addition the CO states that several other
   proposals were hand-carried to the agency on December 22, and that, in
   each case, security personnel called to advise that a package had arrived.
   Upon receipt of these calls, the CO personally greeted individuals seeking
   to deliver the submissions and took possession of the submissions in the
   building lobby. Finally, the CO explains that both mailroom and security
   personnel were aware that the CO was receiving proposals that day.

   In our view, the evidence submitted by the protester does not establish
   that the agency actually received the protester's submissions or that
   there was ever an attempt to deliver the submissions to the NPS facility
   before the closing time established in the solicitation. As explained
   above, the record here, at best, only demonstrates that the USPS carrier
   attempted to deliver the protester's submissions somewhere in Oakland at
   11:22 a.m. on December 22. There is also no evidence that the NPS failed
   to make proper arrangements for deliveries, or in any way mishandled the
   submissions. Instead, numerous other proposals were received throughout
   the day, and the security guard on duty has submitted a sworn statement
   explaining that there were no delivery problems that day. Under these
   circumstances, we think the agency properly refused to accept the
   protester's submissions when they were subsequently delivered by FEDEX.

   Alternatively, Northwest asserts that since the submissions here were only
   Qualifications Statements, and not proposals, no harm will result from the
   agency evaluating its untimely submissions. For the reasons below, we
   disagree.

   The FedBizOpps notice specifically stated a date and time for delivery of
   these submissions and warned vendors that late responses would be handled
   in accordance with FAR sect. 15.208. We have recognized that even when the
   submissions at issue are not proposals, the late submission rules
   alleviate confusion, ensure equal treatment of all competitors, and
   prevent one firm from obtaining any unfair competitive advantage that
   might accrue where only one firm is permitted additional time to prepare
   its submissions for evaluation by the agency. See Zebra Techs. Int'l, LLC,
   B-296158, June 24, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 122 at 3. (agency reasonably
   declined to waive a late submission of past performance
   information--requested by the solicitation prior to quotes, and by a date
   certain--because waiving the clear submission deadline for the protester
   would effectively confer a competitive advantage not provided to other
   offerors). While the government may lose the benefit of more advantageous
   terms included in a late submission, protecting the integrity of the
   competitive procurement process by ensuring fair and equal treatment among
   competitors is of greater importance than the possible advantage to be
   gained by considering a late submission in a single procurement. Id.

   Lastly, the protester maintains that it is a veteran-owned emerging small
   business and may suffer material harm if it is denied the opportunity to
   be considered as a potential provider of such services. While we recognize
   that denying the protester an opportunity to participate in these
   procurements may have an adverse affect on the protester, acceptance of
   the protester's untimely submissions is unfair to other vendors who timely
   submitted responses and inconsistent with protecting the integrity of the
   procurement system.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel