The protester submitted timely proposal revisions. But one volume was quarantined and dropped by the agency’s server. The agency rejected the protester as ineligible. The protester complained, but GAO said them’s the breaks.
Guidehouse, Inc. GAO B-422115.2
- Undelivered Quotation Volume – Vendors had to submit quotation revisions by 8:00 am on June 21. The protester emailed each volume of its quotation separately on June 20. But the email containing volume 4 was flagged by the agency’s server as a security risk. The email was quarantined and eventually dropped. The agency did not receive the volume and found the protester ineligible.
- Designated Inbox – The protester argued its quotation had been timely submitted. Indeed, the protester submitted the rejected volume before the deadline to the email address specified in the solicitation. GAO rejected the argument. The emails were received by the agency’s security gateway and quarantined. They never arrived in the designated inbox. GAO concluded the proposal had never been delivered. The agency properly found the protester ineligible.
- Incorporation of FAR 52.212-1 – FAR 52.212-1 contains exceptions to the late-is-late rule. It allows the agency to consider a late proposal that is under government control before the deadline. But GAO noted the solicitation in this case did not incorporate FAR 52.212.-1.
- Government Control Exception Inapplicable – Nevertheless, GAO noted, even if the solicitation incorporated FAR 52.212-1, it didn’t apply in this case. Simply put, the government control exception does not apply to proposals— as in this case—submitted electronically. Electronic submissions are governed by a different exception in the FAR clause.
The protester is represented by Brian Walsh, Tracye Winfrey Howard, Cara L. Sizemore, and Jennifer Eve Retener of Wiley Rein LLP. The awardee is represented by Kara L. Daniels, Craig H. Holman, and Julia Swafford of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The agency is represented by Daniel Lamb and Mary C. McKenney of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. GAO attorneys Sarah T. Zaffina and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
