Protest challenging agency’s rejection of a late proposal is denied. The protester alleged it had been invited to resubmit a proposal after the proposal deadline. GAO found that the protester had not established that the agency had actually invited it to submit a late proposal. What’s more, the late proposal the protester submitted was non-compliant. The agency did not err in rejecting it.
Background
The Navy posted an RFP for expeditionary support services. The RFP provided that proposals were due at 3:00 pm on April 19, 2021. The RFP further stated that proposals had to be received in its entirety in a designated email box by the due date. Moreover, proposals had to be in either pdf or Word format.
Right before the submission deadline, the Navy received an emailed proposal from Starblast Corporation. The email contained attached documents but also links to documents on a Google drive. The Navy asked Starblast to submit a proposal at 4:00 pm on April 20, 2021. But the Navy did not receive a full proposal by the new deadline.
On June 15, 2021, Starblast learned that the Navy had not considered its proposal. Starblast, however, believed the Navy invited it to resubmit on June 17, which Starblast did. The Navy, however, did not consider the new proposal. Starbalst protested.
Legal Analysis
Starblast argued the Navy should have considered its proposal under FAR 15.208’s electronic commerce exception to the late is late rule. Under that exception, a late proposal will be considered if it was received at the initial point of entry in the government infrastructure no later than one working day prior to the proposal deadline. Strablast contended that it had resubmitted a new proposal on June 16, which was one day prior to the June 17 resubmit deadline.
The Navy denied that it invited Starblast to resubmit. Where the only available evidence is conflicting statements of the protester and the agency, the protester has not met its burden. Starblast’s own recollection of the agency’s invitation did not provide a basis for sustaining the protest.
Moreover, GAO noted that the proposal that Starblast submitted was not submitted to the email box designated in the RFP. Thus, even if it was timely, it was non-compliant. The Navy did not err in declining to consider it.
Starblast is represented by Jon D. Levin and W. Brad English of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC. The intervenor, Reliant, is represented by James H. Price and Michael R. Franz of Lacy, Price & Wagner, P.C. The agency is represented by Laura Weeden of the Navy. GAO attorneys Kenneth Kilgour and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
