Protest challenging the agency’s refusal to consider a proposal is denied. The solicitation authorized submission of proposals through DoD’s file exchange link. The protester had problems uploading its proposal to the DoD link, but it emailed its proposal to the contracting officer one minute before the proposal deadline. The agency declined to consider the proposal. The protester contended the agency should consider the proposal because it was received before the proposal deadline. But GAO found the agency reasonably rejected the proposal because it was not submitted in a manner authorized by the solicitation. The protester asserted that the problems it had uploading its proposal were an unanticipated event that should have extended the proposal deadline. GAO, however, found that there were no problems with the DoD site and thus nothing that constituted an unanticipated event.
The Air Force issued a solicitation seeking construction services at a military base. The solicitation provided that the agency would only accept proposals submitted in one of three ways: (1) DOD SAFE, the Department of Defense’s file exchange; (2) hand-delivery of disks containing the proposal; and (3) mailing disks containing the proposal. Proposals were due by 2 p.m. on July 21.
To submit a proposal via DOD SAFE, an offeror had to request an electronic authorization from the Air Force. The Air Force would then send the offeror a receipt with an electronic authorization link. Once the offeror submitted their proposal through the link, they would be notified via an automatic message that their proposal had been received.
GSI Construction Company requested a DOD SAFE authorization and received a link from the agency. But the Air Force never received a notification that GSI had filed its documents with DOD SAFE. Instead, at 1:59 p.m. on July 21, one minute before proposals were due, GSI emailed the contracting officer stating that the company had problems uploading the proposal to DOD SAFE. Instead, GSI attached its proposal to the email. The Air Force informed GSI that it could not accept the proposal by email. GSI protested.
GSI argued that the solicitation included FAR 52.215-1, which provides that offerors are responsible for submitting proposals so as to reach the government by the time specified in the solicitation. GSI argued that since its proposal reached the contracting officer by the deadline, it submitted an acceptable proposal.
GAO didn’t buy it. GSI’s emailed proposal reached the contracting officer before the deadline, but emailed proposals were not permitted by the solicitation, and the contracting officer was not allowed to accept emailed proposals. Thus, GSI’s proposal was not properly submitted to the government by the time specified in the solicitation.
Still, GSI argued that under FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(iv), if an unanticipated event occurs, the time for receipt of proposals will be extended to the next day when normal government processes resume. According to GSI, an unanticipated event occurred when it tried to upload its proposal to DOD SAFE and something interrupted the normal government processes.
But GAO found that GSI had not demonstrated an unanticipated event. GAO requested additional information on the status of DOD SAFE on the date proposals were due. The Air Force provided a detailed response that indicated the system was functioning normally and that no scheduled maintenance had been performed during that time. Thus, the unanticipated event exception in FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(iv) did not apply.
Finally, GSI contended that the FAR 52.215-1(3) allows agencies to waive informalities and minor irregularities with proposals received, so the Air Force should have just accepted the proposal received by email. GAO, however, noted that this FAR provision only allows a waiver for “proposals received.” Because the Air Force did not receive GSI’s proposal in the manner required by the solicitation, that FAR provision was inapplicable.
GSI is represented by Joshua Owens. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Major Laura B. Bauza, Michael J. Farr, and Stephen Edward See of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.