Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: Latvian Connection Trading and Construction, LLC 

File: B-402410 

Date: February 25, 2010 

Victor A. Kubli, Esq., Kubli & Associates, P.C., for the protester. 

Maj. William J. Nelson, Department of the Army, for the agency. 

John L. Formica, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency’s award of a contract to an offeror other than the protester is 

unobjectionable where the record reflects that the protester electronically sent, but 

the agency did not receive, the protester’s proposal by the due date for receipt of 

proposals. 

DECISION 

Latvian Connection Trading and Construction, LLC, of Healdsburg, California, 

protests the award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91B4K-10-

R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army, for generators. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP was issued for the provision of generators to the Fenty Forward Operating 

Base in Afghanistan. The solicitation provided for the award of a fixed-price 

contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. 

RFP at 3-11, 24. The RFP, which had a closing date and time of November 12, 2009, 

at 1 p.m. eastern standard time, provided that proposals could be submitted either 

electronically or in hard copy. Id. at 1, 21. The solicitation cautioned offerors that 

they were “responsible for submitting offers, and any modifications, revisions, or 

withdrawals, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by 

the time specified in the solicitation.” Id. at 16. The RFP added, in relevant part, that 

“[a]ny offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the 

Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for 

receipt of offers [will be] ‘late’ and will not be considered.” Id. at 17. 
Page 2 B-402410 

The agency received 74 timely proposals and 10 late proposals in response to the 

solicitation. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement, at 1. 

According to its records, the agency did not receive a proposal from Latvian 

Connection. 

Latvian Connection asserts that contrary to the agency’s records, it timely submitted 

its proposal by e-mail on November 12 at 1:19 a.m. Protest at 4. In support of this 

assertion, the protester states that its “‘sent’ e-mail folder confirms the transmission 

of [Latvian Connection’s] proposal,” and that it “continued to utilize (without 

incident) the same e-mail address in its post-proposal submission communications” 

with the agency. Id. The protest also includes the declaration of Latvian 

Connection’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), which states that he transmitted the 

proposal as an attachment to an e-mail “at ‘1:19 [a.m.]’ on ‘Thursday, November 12, 

2009,’” and that his e-mail records do not “in any way suggest[] that the e-mail and 

attachments were rejected as undeliverable or otherwise not sent.” Protest, exh. 6, 

Declaration, at 1. The protester asserts that the agency’s actions in awarding the 

contract to any other offeror were unreasonable because, in the protester’s view, 

“[t]he evidence of [Latvian Connection’s] timely submission of its lower-priced 

proposal to the address specified in the RFP is clear, cumulative and undisputed.” 

Protest at 6. 

It is an offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the proper place at the 

proper time. Federal Acquisition Regulation § 15.208; Lakeshore Eng’g Servs., 

B-401434, July 24, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 155 at 4. Although the protester has submitted 

certain evidence, including the declaration of its CEO, in support of its assertion that 

it timely sent its proposal to the agency, there is no evidence establishing that the 

proposal was actually received by the agency. In this regard, the agency states that 

in response to Latvian Connection’s initial inquiries and protest, searches of the 

agency’s e-mails were performed on five different occasions by four different 

individuals, including the contracting officer, the cognizant senior systems 

administrator, and the cognizant information management officer, and that these 

searches did not result in any finding of the protester’s proposal. Contracting 

Officer’s Statement at 2. 

On the basis of the record here, we conclude that the protester has failed to satisfy 

its burden of showing that it timely delivered its proposal to the agency. Lakeshore 

Eng’g Servs., supra; International Garment Processors, B-299674 et al., July 17, 2007, 

2007 CPD ¶ 130 at 7. Accordingly, we have no basis on which to object to the 

agency’s actions. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel