The Castle Group
Highlights
The Castle Group, agent for Medex Tianjin Latex Group, protests the Agency for International Development's (USAID) rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. M-0AA-GH-06-063, for latex condoms.
B-297853, The Castle Group, March 21, 2006
Decision
Jason S. Schloss for the protester.
Diane A. Perone, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency properly declined to accept protester's late proposal where there is no evidence that improper government action was cause of U.S. Postal Service's failure to make timely delivery.
DECISION
The Castle Group, agent for Medex Tianjin Latex Group, protests the Agency for International Development's (USAID) rejection of its proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. M-0AA-GH-06-063, for latex condoms.
The RFP informed offerors to submit their proposals by the closing date and time--January 3, 2006, at 11:00 a.m.--to the following mailing address: [Ms. Z], Contracting Officer, Office Of Acquisition And Assistance, M/OAA/GH, Rm. 7.09-086,
Castle used the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) on-line Click-N-Ship program to prepare an Express Mail shipping label, and addressed its proposal as follows: [Ms. Z], OFC OF ACQUISITION & ASSISTANCE, M/OAA/GH, RM 7 09-086, 1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON DC 20004-3002. Castle knew that it had not provided the precise address information from the RFP, but states that it was unable to do so because the Click-N-Ship program's field limitations and address verification system would not accommodate all the required information, and also automatically changed the zip code from 20523 (as entered by Castle) to 20004. Typed below the shipping label was the RFP number, Castle's address, and the words BID ON BEHALF OF MEDEX TIANJIN LATEX GROUP as well as Solicitation Due Date: January 3, 2006, and Time: 11:00 AM.
On
Castle asserts that, notwithstanding the discrepancies on its address label, its proposal package arrived at the proper address prior to the closing time and was improperly refused by the agency. In Castle's view, this constituted government mishandling and entitles it to have USAID consider its proposal. The agency maintains that it never received or refused Castle's proposal; the firm's failure to follow the address instructions prevented it from arriving in USAID's mailroom.
An offer is late if it does not arrive at the office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Sencland CDC Enters., B-252796, B-252797,
The protest is without merit because there is no evidence of mishandling or any other improper agency action. USAID's Director of Mail Management denies receiving or rejecting the Castle proposal package, and reports that the contractor's mailroom supervisor and mailroom staff also deny handling the package.[1] Director's Affidavit, paras. 7-8. In this regard, there is no marking on the returned package to indicate it was handled by USAID's mailroom. Further, as noted by the Director, USAID mailroom procedures do not include handwritten notations for returns but, rather, involve the use of a special return to sender label (
We find that the record supports the alternative explanation--suggested by the agency--that Castle's mislabeling of the proposal package may have caused the failed delivery. In this regard, the
Castle asserts that we should find government mishandling based on the malfunctioning Click-N-Ship program, and USPS's failure to deliver its Express Mail package by the guaranteed time and taking 7 days to return the package to Castle.[2] Supplemental Comments at 5. None of these matters constitute government mishandling. First, we view the alleged Click-N-Ship problems as a failure on the protester's part, not the government's, since the protester chose to use the Click-N-Ship program to print its mailing label. Castle was responsible for choosing a means of addressing its proposal package--such as simply handwriting all necessary information on an Express Mail envelope and having the postage affixed at the nearest post office--that would result in the package being correctly addressed. Further, any delay connected with USPS's handling of the Express Mail delivery is not considered to be mishandling by the government; the word government in the context of proposal mishandling refers to the procuring agency, not USPS, and the mishandling must occur after the proposal is received at the government installation.[3] California State Univ.,
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
[1] USPS allegedly told Castle that the Director is the individual who refused the proposal package. The Director denies this, explaining that, as the contracting officer's technical representative, he does not accept, refuse, or otherwise handle the mail at USAID, and he does not instruct anyone else to do so; rather, his responsibility is limited to overseeing the private contractor that runs the day-to-day activities of USAID's mailroom. Director's Affidavit at paras. 1, 7. Again, since there is no evidence that the Director was involved in any way in the attempted delivery of the proposal package, there is no basis for questioning his statement.
[2] Castle asserts that the contracting officer's failure to return its phone call of December 28 constituted government mishandling. However, an agency's failure to return a phone call does not constitute mishandling of a proposal.
[3] Castle asserts that because it sent its proposal by Express Mail at least 2 working days prior to the closing time, its late proposal should be considered. However, while the FAR at one time provided for consideration of late-received proposals sent by Express Mail, neither the current FAR sect. 52.215-1, nor the RFP, provides an exception permitting consideration of late mailed proposals.