The protester argues that there is no proof that the agency had in its possession the CMEC bid prior to the bid opening. It maintains that the Federal Express tracking document simply shows that "something" was delivered on March 3 and that there is no evidence of a bid document with an agency date stamp proving receipt.

As a general rule, bidders are responsible for delivering their bids to the proper place at the proper time. United Teleplex, B-237160.2, Feb. 2, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 146 at 2. Where as here, a bid is delivered by a commercial carrier, the bid is regarded as hand-carried. Watson Agency, Inc., B-241072, Dec. 19, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 506 at 2. A late hand-carried bid may be considered for award, however, where improper government action was the paramount cause of its late delivery and consideration of the late bid would not compromise the integrity of the competitive bid system. Id.

Contrary to the protester's assertion, neither procurement regulations nor decisions of our Office require that timely receipt of hand-carried bids be proved only by a time/date stamp or other documentary evidence maintained by the government installation. Santa Cruz Constr., Inc., B-226773, July 2, l987, 87-2 CPD para. 7 at 2. Where, as here, the issue is whether a hand-carried bid was timely received by the agency, all relevant evidence, including commercial carrier records and statements made by government personnel, may be considered. Id.; Power Connector, Inc., B‑256362, June 15, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 369 at 2.

The evidence cited by the agency shows that CMEC's original bid was timely received by the agency. For example, the Federal Express tracking sheet submitted by the agency and CMEC shows that an agency employee signed for the original bid package at 10:51 a.m. on March 3. The record also evidences that CMEC acted in a manner reasonably calculated to ensure the delivery of the bid to the contracting officer before bid opening, and it was the agency's actions that were the paramount cause for the contracting officer not having the original bid at bid opening. In this regard, CMEC's bid package was properly addressed to the contracting officer and delivered to the address stated in the IFB, and CMEC confirmed with the contracting officer that its bid had been timely received. The contracting officer, however, failed to pick up the original bid at the proper location prior to bid opening.

The contracting officer states that at 2:50 p.m. on March 3, after he had read the bids at the bid opening, he noticed CMEC's original bid. The contracting officer then verified that the bid was received prior to bid opening. We further note that, since CMEC's bid was delivered to the VA well prior to the bid opening, and it remained in the VA's possession until it was opened, acceptance of the bid does not compromise the integrity of the bidding system. Kelton Contracting, Inc., B-262255, Dec. 12, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 254 at 3. Moreover, there is no question that CMEC's bid modification was timely received by the agency.  (Stephen Lucas Construction, LLC, B-402654, June 9, 2010) (pdf)

As a general rule, bidders are responsible for delivering their bids to the proper place at the proper time, and late delivery of a bid generally requires its rejection even if it is the lowest bid. J.C.N. Constr. Co., Inc., B-270068, B-270068.2, Feb. 6, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 42 at 3; Aztec Dev. Co., B-256905, July 28, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 48 at 3. A bid is late if it does not arrive at the office designated in the solicitation by the time specified, Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 14.304(b)(1); Aztec Dev. Co., supra., and, normally, receipt at other places, such as a post office box or the agency’s mailroom, is insufficient. Biones Constr. & Equipment Co., Inc., B-279575, June 29, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 175 at 4-5. In this regard, bidders must allow a reasonable time for bids to be delivered from the designated point of receipt (such as in this case, a post office box) to the bid opening room which is the ultimate destination for bid opening. See Bay Shipbuilding Corp., B-240301, Oct. 30, 1990, 91-1 CPD para. 161 at 3, n.1. Our review of the record shows that although the protester’s bid was received at the agency’s mailroom, an intermediate stop for delivery of the package, approximately 4 hours prior to bid opening, there is no evidence that the bid was received by the contracting division before the 2 p.m. bid opening. Further, the contracting specialist to whom bids were to be addressed and who conducted the bid opening did not receive the protester’s bid package until approximately 2 hours after bid opening. Accordingly, we find reasonable the agency’s determination that the bid was late.

While a late hand-carried bid may be considered if it is determined that the late receipt was due primarily to government mishandling after receipt at the government installation, a late bid should not be accepted if the bidder significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its own responsibility to submit its bid in a timely manner. Comspace Corp., B-281067, Nov. 30, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 122 at 2. Where, as here, a bidder fails to record on its bid’s sealed envelope required information as to the solicitation number it is responding to, and the deadline for its receipt, and, moreover, as here, also fails to address its bid submission to the required point of contact at the address provided in the IFB for bid submission, the bidder is usually primarily responsible for any delay in its delivery. Boines Constr. & Equipment Co., Inc., supra. In this case, the protester failed to address its bid to the appropriate individual, and failed to mark its bid package envelope in any way to indicate that it contained time-sensitive bid information, which caused the package to be sorted for standard delivery to the contracting division, rather than under the mailroom’s accelerated procedures for delivery of bid documents. We agree with the agency that the firm here failed to do what it reasonably could and should have done to ensure proper delivery, and its failure to take the available steps to ensure timely delivery was the paramount cause of the bid’s late receipt. Since there has been no showing of government mishandling of the bid package, the bid was properly rejected as late.  (Aquaterra Contracting, Inc., B-400065, July 14, 2008) (pdf)

We find nothing objectionable in the agency’s rejection of Amigo’s second bid modification. The modification was plainly late, since it did not reach the designated location for receipt of bids prior to bid opening. To the extent that the protester believes that government mishandling was the cause of the modification’s being late or that Amigo did all it could reasonably be expected to do to ensure timely delivery, see Weeks Marine, Inc., supra, we believe that the record establishes that the protester’s belief is unsupported. As indicated, by the protester’s own account, the modification was sent by facsimile at 1:51 p.m. and the transmission took 7.51 minutes to reach the agency’s facsimile machine, thereby allowing one minute for agency personnel to retrieve, process, and deliver this modification to the bid opening room. The record shows that at the time the contract specialist was notified that it was time to conduct the bid opening, the second bid modification was not printed in its entirety--page 3 of the four pages (containing the second page of the bid schedule) was still printing. This being the case, it was primarily (if not entirely) the protester’s tardy beginning of the transmission that caused the failure of the modification to reach the bid opening room on time. Nothing in the record suggests mishandling of the modification by the government. Finally, the protester alleges that the government was legally required to consider the bid modification, since it was received in the memory of the agency’s facsimile machine before 2 p.m. and was therefore effectively in the Corps’s control before bid opening. We disagree. At least in the circumstances of this case--where the solicitation clearly placed the risk of facsimile transmission problems on bidders and yet Amigo nonetheless began transmitting its second bid modification within the final few minutes before the start of bid opening--we do not believe that receipt in the facsimile machine’s memory (assuming, arguendo, that the modification was in the machine’s memory before bid opening) qualifies as “under the Government’s control” prior to the time for receipt of bids as contemplated by the clause at FAR § 52.214-7 so as to require the agency to consider the protester’s late bid modification. (Amigo-JT Joint Venture, B-292830, December 9, 2003)  (pdf)

When evaluating the acceptability of a late bid outside the strict confines of the late bid regulations, we are guided by the general principle that where a bidder has done all it could and should to fulfill its responsibility, it should not suffer if the bid is untimely because the government failed in its own responsibility, so long as acceptance of the bid would not cast doubt on the integrity of the bidding process. See Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc., B-274885, Jan. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 16 at 3-4. Accordingly, we have found late bids acceptable where the government’s affirmative misdirection—such as erroneous solicitation instructions--was the paramount cause of a bidder’s untimely delivery of its bid since an agency has an affirmative duty to establish procedures for the timely receipt of bids. See id.; Select, Inc., B-245820.2, Jan. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 22 at 4. In this case, the IFB listed the wrong room for delivery of bids. This error, which was attributable solely to the government, directly resulted in Great Lakes submitting its bid 1 minute late. Had the government provided for the receipt of bids in the room identified in the IFB, there is no doubt that Great Lakes’ bid would have been timely; the record clearly demonstrates that Great Lakes was at the room designated for receipt of bids approximately 5 minutes in advance of the time set for bid opening. But, because Great Lakes was required to make its way from the designated bid opening room to the actual bid opening room, the government effectively caused Great Lakes’ bid to be received late. As a consequence, the misdirection by the agency was the paramount cause of Great Lakes’ untimely submission of its bid. As a final matter, it does not appear that accepting Great Lakes’ bid compromised the integrity of the procurement. When addressing this issue, the operative question is whether the late bidder gained an unfair competitive advantage over other bidders as a result of having submitted its bid late. See Brazos Roofing, Inc., B-275113, Jan. 23, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 43 at 5. In this regard, the protester emphasizes the fact that the agency did not receive Great Lakes’ bid until after approximately three of the protester’s 18 bid line items had been disclosed. According to the protester, this provided Great Lakes with the opportunity to decide not to furnish the bid after bid opening. The protester’s concern, however, is tempered by the fact that the position in which Great Lakes was placed resulted from the actions of Corps personnel and was not by its own design or choosing. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Inglis, who delivered Great Lakes’ bid, actually heard the prices when they were read. Mr. Inglis had only a few minutes to go from the the 19th floor to the actual bid opening room on the 18th floor; when he arrived, Corps personnel noted that he appeared hurried and out of breath. Agency personnel also indicated that they did not see anyone outside the bid opening room when the contracting officer called time. Under these circumstances, Mr. Inglis’ statement in his declaration that he did not hear any prices being read prior to handing Great Lakes’ bid to the agency, seems credible. (Weeks Marine, Inc., B-292758, October 16, 2003) (pdf)

GPEA contends that the agency has not adequately shown that its bid was received late. GPEA challenges the agency's reliance on the log maintained by the security guards because the guards are not government employees. In our view, the log is acceptable evidence of the time of receipt. It is undisputed that the log is a record maintained by the security guards in the regular course of monitoring the loading dock for the agency, and there is no reason to challenge its authenticity or reliability. The fact that the log is compiled by security guards who are contract employees rather than government employees does not preclude reliance on the log. See J. L. Malone & Assocs., B-290282, July 2, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 116 at 5. 
GPEA itself submitted a copy of a “customer cartage manifest” from Airborne Express that purports to show that the bid package was delivered to the loading dock at 11:49 a.m. on bid opening day.2 Commercial carrier records, standing alone, however, do not serve to establish the time of delivery to the agency, since they are not evidence of receipt maintained or confirmed by the agency. Valenzuela Eng'g, Inc., B-280984, Dec. 16, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 145 at 3. In any event, to the extent that GPEA relies on the Airborne Express document to establish that its bid was not in fact late, receipt of a bid at a mailroom or other receiving area does not constitute receipt at the office specified in the IFB. Inland Marine Indus., supra. Thus, even assuming that GPEA had established that the bid was received at the loading dock before the closing time--which it has not--the bid nevertheless properly would be considered late, since there is no evidence showing receipt of the bid in the specified office by the time set for receipt of bids in the IFB.  (General Power Engineering Associates, Inc., B-292170, May 28, 2003)  (pdf)

Although the contracting officer was the official designated in the prospectus as the recipient of mailed bids, the contracting officer was not present at his desk or in his office prior to bid opening, and did not return to his office prior to bid opening to determine whether any last minute bids had been received. The bid opening official did check the mailroom and the mail clerk's desk prior to bid opening, but she too failed to check the contracting officer's desk. This failure by the cognizant officials to check the desk of the official designated for receipt of bids constituted mishandling.  (Carroll Gene Brewer, B-285484, August 22, 2000)

In short, there is no acceptable evidence which establishes that Cal Marine's bid was received at the installation prior to bid opening, as required under the test set forth in Pershield, Inc., supra, at 3, and it follows that if timely receipt cannot be established by acceptable evidence, then the second requirement of Pershield--i.e., that the bid was in the government's sole custody from prior to bid opening until discovered--is also not met. In this case, the location of Cal Marine's bid at any time prior to its discovery on January 14 remains unaccounted for. Accordingly, the bid cannot be properly considered, Chelsea Clock Co., Inc., B-251348.2, May 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 401 at 4, and the protest is sustained.  (Pacific Tank Cleaning Services, Inc., B-279111.2, July 1, 1998)

However, a late bid should not be accepted if the bidder significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its responsibility for ensuring delivery to the designated place for receipt by the proper time. Aztec Dev. Co., supra, at 3; John Holtman and Sons, Inc., B-246062, Feb. 13, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 187 at 2; J.E. Steigerwald Co., Inc., supra, at 5. Where the bidder fails to record required information as to the solicitation number, deadline for receipt and ultimate destination on the outside envelope provided by the commercial carrier, the bidder is usually primarily responsible for any delay in delivery. See Systems for Bus., B-224409, Aug. 6, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 164 at 3-4. Here, Pierce's failure to mark its commercial carrier-provided envelope as required by FAR sec. 52.214-5 was the paramount reason for the delay resulting from the mailroom's "misrouting" of its bid.  (Boines Construction & Equipment Co., Inc., B-279575, June 29, 1998)