The agency rejected the protester’s proposal as late. The protester argued its late proposal was excused by the FAR’s “government control” exception. But GAO noted that proposals were submitted electronically, and the government control exception does not apply to electronic submissions.
ICS Nett, Inc., GAO B-422575
- Late Proposal – The solicitation required offerors to submit their proposals electronically by 5:00 pm. The protester submitted a portion of its proposal after 5:00 pm. Because the agency did not receive the entire proposal by the deadline, it rejected the proposal as late.
- Government Control – FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) states that a proposal is not late if it is under the government’s control before the deadline. Here, the protester argued that its proposal was within the government’s system by the deadline. So, the proposal was under government control and thus was not late.
- Government Control Exception Doesn’t Apply – GAO rejected the protester’s argument. GAO precedent holds the government control exception does not apply to electronic submissions. Rather, electronic submissions are governed by a different FAR clause. That clause states that an electronic submission is exempted from the late-is-late rule if it is received at a government portal one business day before the deadline. The protester’s proposal was not in the governmental portal the day before the deadline.
Kaiser Gil represents the protester. The agency is represented by Andrew Smith, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Tregle, Major Britney Mongomery, and Major Brandon Mark of the Missile Defense Agency. GAO attorneys Suresh S. Boodram and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief
