Protest challenging agency’s rejection of a late proposal is denied. The protester had asked the agency questions about the solicitation, and the agency had not responded before the proposal deadline. The protester argued that it was unreasonable for the agency to reject its proposal when it failed to timely respond to the protester’s questions. GAO found that agencies are only permitted to accept late proposals in certain limited circumstances. Agency delay is answering offeror questions is not one of those circumstances.
The Army Corps of Engineers posted a solicitation seeking park services—cleaning, mowing, trimming, etc. Proposals were due at noon on Monday March 23, 2020. On Thursday, March 19, Prestige Lawncare emailed the contracting officer a series of questions. The contracting officer was out of the office and did not even see the email until Monday, March 23. The contracting officer responded to Prestige’s email at 11 a.m., on Monday, informing the company that she was unable to answer the questions and needed to speak to the project manager. At 12:29 p.m. about a half hour after the proposal deadline, Prestige submitted its proposal. The contracting officer rejected the proposal as late.
Prestige protested arguing that the Corps should have accepted its late proposal because the agency failed to provide a timely response to its questions. GAO was unconvinced by the argument reasoning that the solicitation incorporated FAR 52.212-1, which allows agencies to only accept a late proposal in a few circumstances. The FAR does not permit an agency to accept a late proposal when an offeror has questions about the solicitation. The Corps thus properly rejected Prestige’s proposal.
Prestige is represented by Michael Dial. The agency is represented by Allen Black and David Zhai of the Army. GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the preparation of the decision.
