United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: Hunter Contracting Company 

File: B-402575 

Date: March 31, 2010 

B. Michael Schestopol, Esq., and Anne Marie Tavella, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & 

Baker LLP, for the protester. 

Susan C. Stevenson-Popp, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection, for the agency. 

Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protester’s late delivery of its proposal is not excused where the government was 

closed due to inclement weather for several days prior to the closing date for receipt 

of proposals, but normal government processes had resumed by the scheduled 

closing date such that the agency was able to receive proposals by the exact time 

specified in the solicitation; the fact that a delayed arrival/unscheduled leave policy 

for government employees was authorized for that day did not mean that normal 

government processes had not resumed. 

DECISION 

Hunter Contracting Company, of Tucson, Arizona, protests the rejection of its 

proposal as late under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSBP1209R2483, issued by 

the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), for comprehensive tactical infrastructure maintenance and repair along the 

United States southwest border. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP, as amended, required offerors to submit proposals to the CBP’s Arlington, 

Virginia office by 3 p.m. (eastern time), Friday, February 12, 2010. Hunter mailed its 

proposal from Tucson, Arizona on February 10 via the United States Postal Service’s 

“Next Day Noon Express.” Due to severe inclement weather in the Washington D.C. 

area, airplane flights were cancelled and federal agencies were closed February 8-11. 

On Friday, February 12, federal agencies reopened, but were operating on a “delayed 
Page 2 B-402575 

arrival/unscheduled leave” policy. Hunter’s proposal was delivered to the CBP on 

the morning of Tuesday, February 16--the next business day following February 12.1 

The agency rejected Hunter’s proposal as late, and this protest followed. 

The protester argues that, given the inclement weather and resulting closures, the 

CBP should have accepted its proposal under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

§ 15.208(d). This section provides that 

[i]f an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal 

Government processes so that proposals cannot be received at the 

Government office designated for receipt of proposals by the exact 

time specified in the solicitation, and urgent Government 

requirements preclude amendment of the solicitation closing date, 

the time specified for receipt of proposals will be deemed to be 

extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the 

first work day on which normal Government processes resume. 

Hunter argues that, consistent with this FAR provision, its proposal was timely 

submitted because CBP received the proposal prior to 3 p.m. on the first work day 

that normal government processes resumed. 

We agree with the agency that FAR § 15.208(d) does not apply to the circumstances 

here. The CBP concluded that normal government operations resumed on 

February 12 because the government was open that entire day. Since the 

government was open on February 12, the earlier closures that Hunter cites did not 

prevent the CBP from receiving proposals “by the exact time specified in the 

solicitation.” FAR § 15.208(d). Indeed, the record shows that the CBP had an 

individual in place to receive proposals beginning at 8 a.m. on February 12, and CBP 

received a number of proposals prior to the 3 p.m. closing time. Motion to Dismiss 

at 2. While Hunter points to the “delayed arrival/unscheduled leave” policy to show 

that government processes were interrupted on February 12, the relaxed arrival and 

leave policy did not mean the government had not resumed normal operations, and, 

in fact, had no bearing on the agency’s ability to receive proposals by the specified 

closing time. Because Hunter did not timely deliver its proposal to the CBP, the 

proposal was late and properly rejected. See FAR § 52.215-1(c)(3); PMTech, Inc., 

B-291082, Oct. 11, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 172 at 3 (“It is an offeror’s responsibility to 

deliver its proposal to the proper place at the proper time.”) 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

1

 Monday, February 15, was a federal holiday.