Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Sector One Security Solution 

File: B-400728 

Date: December 10, 2008 

Kenneth L. Sanford, Sector One Security Solution, for the protester. 

David B. Dempsey, Esq., Jessica M. Madon, Esq., and Megan M. Mocho, Esq., Holland 

& Knight LLP, for Four Winds Services, Inc., an intervenor. 

Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. 

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protester’s contention that the agency improperly refused to consider its proposal is 

denied where there is no evidence that the agency received the proposal by the 

solicitation due date or that improper government action caused the failure of the 

postal service to make timely delivery, and where the record shows that the 

protester failed to follow the delivery instructions in the solicitation. 

DECISION 

Sector One Security Solution, of Franklin, Virginia, protests the rejection as late of 

its proposal submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 

SAQMMA08R0237, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for the acquisition of 

support services to DOS Peacekeeping Operations in Africa. Sector One argues that 

the agency should have accepted its proposal because the protester sent it by United 

States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail and because the protester believes the 

USPS carrier attempted to deliver the proposal prior to the closing time for receipt. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP was published in FedBizOpps on June 27, 2008, and contemplated multiple 

awards of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to provide these support 

services for a base period with four 1-year option periods. The RFP, as amended, 

informed offerors to submit their proposals by 3 p.m. local time on September 11, 

2008, at the following address: 
 Mail to:

U.S. Department of State 

ATTN: Michael Larson

Office of Acquisition Management 

P.O. Box 9115 

Arlington, VA 22219 

Or Hand-Carried to (offeror must pre-coordinate drop-off with the 

Contracting Officer): 1701 N. Ft. Myer Drive (Rosslyn Station), SA-6

Arlington, VA 22209 

RFP § L.15, RFP amend. 6, at 1. 

The RFP also incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.215-1, which 

provides that late proposals generally will not be considered for award if they do not 

reach the designiated government office by the time specified in the solicition. 

Sector One used USPS Express Mail to send its proposal to the address in the RFP 

for hand-carried submissions. The agency reports that the USPS does not deliver 

mail to office annex buildings of the DOS, such as the one in which the Office of 

Acquisition is located. Agency Report (AR) at 5. For this reason, the RFP provided a 

post office box address for mailing and required that any hand-carried proposal be 

coordinated with the contracting officer. 

Sector One’s proposal was returned to it unopened with a notation that it was 

refused; the protester subsequently contacted the agency and claims it was advised 

that the proposal was returned because it had been misaddressed. However, the 

agency reports that it never received Sector One’s proposal. AR, Tab 9, Contract

Specialist October 21, 2008 email. 

Sector One asserts that it sent its proposal by express mail to the address in the RFP 

for hand-delivery or courier. The protester has provided the USPS Express Mail 

label from the package indicating that it had the correct hand-carried address 

provided by the RFP and that USPS made two attempts to deliver the package, one 

of which was after the date and time for submission of proposals. The protester 

argues that express mail is delivered by courier and that someone at the agency 

marked “refused” in the employee signature box. 

It is the responsibility of each firm to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the 

proper time, and late delivery generally requires rejection of the submission. 

Sencland CDC Enters., B-252796, B-252797, July 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD ¶ 36 at 3. Where 

late receipt results from the failure of a vendor to reasonably fulfill its responsibility 

for ensuring timely delivery to the specified location, the late offer may not be

considered. Aztec Dev. Co., B-256905, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD ¶ 48 at 3. An offer 

that arrives late may only be considered if it is shown that the paramount reason for 

late receipt was improper government action, and where consideration of the 

Page 2 B-400728 
proposal would not compromise the integrity of the competitive procurement 

process. Caddell Constr. Co., Inc., B-280405, Aug. 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 50 at 6. 

Improper government action in this context is affirmative action that makes it 

impossible for the offeror to deliver the proposal on time. Id.

As an initial matter, the agency denies receiving or rejecting the Sector One proposal 

submission that was the subject of the alleged delivery attempt by the USPS carrier. 

As explained above, since USPS does not deliver mail to the building where the 

Office of Acquisition is located, the RFP contained a P.O. box for mailed proposals,

and allowed for hand-carried proposals provided delivery was coordinated with the 

contracting officer. By its own admission, the protester did not follow the 

instructions in the RFP for submission of its proposal in that it made no 

arrangements with the contracting officer for hand-carried delivery. 

In our view, the evidence submitted by the protester does not establish that the 

agency actually received the protester’s submission or that there was an attempt to 

deliver the proposals to the agency before the closing time established in the 

solicitation. As explained above, the record here, at best, only demonstrates that the 

USPS carrier attempted to deliver the protester’s submission to some DOS location 

and does not specifically demonstrate whether anyone at DOS refused to accept 

delivery. The record shows that the paramount reason for the nonreceipt of the 

protester’s submission is the protester’s failure to follow the solicitation instructions

to either mail its proposal to the designated P.O. box number or make the proper 

arrangements for hand-carried delivery. In short, there is nothing in the record 

showing that any affirmative government action deprived the protester of the ability 

to make a proper delivery of its proposal. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 3 B-400728