Protest challenging agency’s decision to reject a late proposal is denied. The protester’s courier was confused about where to deliver proposals and as a result delivered the proposal 20 minutes late. The protester argued the agency should not have rejected the proposal because the government was partly responsible for the delay. GAO disagreed, finding that protester’s decision to dispatch a courier only 30 minutes before the deadline, and the courier’s failure to follow directions caused the late delivery.
The Army published a solicitation for heavy duty vehicles. Proposals had be delivered by noon on the day proposals were due. The solicitation specified one location to which proposals were to be mailed and different location for hand-delivered proposals. Both locations were buildings on the same Army base.
An offeror, Vizocom elected to hand-deliver its proposal with a commercial courier. The courier arrived at the base shortly before noon. Instead of going directly to the building specified for hand deliveries, the courier went to the building where proposals were supposed to be mailed. Agency personnel in mail building refused to accept the proposal. The courier ultimately delivered the proposal to the correct building 20 minutes late. The Army rejected the proposal as untimely, and Vizocom protested.
Late hand-delivered proposals may be considered for award if the government’s misdirection or improper action is the primary cause of the late delivery. Vizocom alleged that in this case, the Army caused the delay because security personnel at the base directed the courier to the wrong building.
GAO, however, found that the record failed to establish that government action was the primary cause of the delay. Rather, Vizocom decided to dispatch a courier to the bases less than 30 minutes before proposals were due, which resulted in the courier’s arrival with only five minutes remaining before proposals were due. Notwithstanding instructions in the solicitation, Vizocom failed to obtain advance approval to allow the courier into the base. What’s more, it appeared that the courier ignored directions and went to the wrong building, which increased the delay. In short, it was Vizocom’s, not the Army’s actions that caused the delay
Vizocom is represented by Yuki Haraguchi and Chidinma Okogbue. The agency is represented by Benjamin A. Netzky of the Army. GAO attorneys Kasia Dourney and Chistina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
