“NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE” By
“GAO’s opinion should serve as a warning to contractors that a late proposal will not be considered.
Especially with the use of electronic submission processes, a matter of seconds can be the difference between a timely and late proposal.
The Government Accountability Office on Feb. 27 reiterated its long standing rule that, when it comes to proposal submissions, “late” means “late.”
GAO addressed a protest filed by Tele-Consultants Inc. in connection with a request for proposals issued by Naval Sea Systems Command. TCI’s protest argued that its proposal was improperly rejected by the agency for being submitted after the deadline.
Under the request for proposals, the Navy sought support services for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center through the issuance of a task order to a small business holder of the SeaPort-e multiple award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. The solicitation was issued Sept. 28, 2016 and proposals were to be submitted electronically through the SeaPort-e portal by Nov. 8 at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. The solicitation required compliance with the proposal submission instructions outlined in the SeaPort-e multiple award contract and the SeaPort Vendor Portal User Guide.
In using the portal, contractors were required to designate an “authorized user” who could confirm the intent to engage in a legally binding action, such as submitting a proposal. When a contractor was ready to submit its proposal, its authorized user was required to use the “submit signed proposal” button. The portal would then generate a confirmation prompt that would require the user to confirm his or her intent to electronically sign and submit the proposal.
The portal was set up so that contractors could store their proposals on the contractor side of the portal prior to submitting their proposal.
The agency received three proposals by the deadline. TCI’s proposal was not among them. Rather, TCI’s proposal remained in its draft form on the contractor side of the portal because it had not engaged the submit button.
Based on a review of the server logs, the agency determined that TCI’s representatives had unsuccessfully tried to engage the button 23 and 34 seconds after the proposal deadline. TCI reached out to the contracting officer by phone and email stating that the proposal button had not allowed it to submit its proposal but that “TCI’s proposal was timely submitted and it was intended to be binding on TCI.”
TCI received an email that evening from the SeaPort-e portal that noted that, “[a]n event for which you created a draft proposal has closed without you completing the final submission process. As a result, the draft will not be considered.” There was no indication that the portal had experienced any technical malfunction that would have prevented TCI from timely submitting its proposal.
TCI argued that its proposal should not have been rejected because, even though it did not receive notice that its proposal was timely submitted, its proposal was, in fact, submitted on time. Additionally, TCI argued that, even if its proposal was late, it was in the government’s control and was, thus, subject to the exception set forth in FAR 15.208. Under FAR 15.208, proposals that are submitted after the deadline are late unless, among other exceptions, there is evidence that the proposal “was received at the government installation designated for receipt of proposals and was under the government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals[.]”
TCI argued that the archival lock on proposal files was acceptable evidence to establish that its proposal was received at the government installation designated for receipt of proposals and was under the government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of proposals.
The agency responded that TCI’s failure to engage the button meant that TCI had failed to submit its proposal either on time or after the deadline. The agency explained that proposals were not added to the government side of the portal until the submit button was selected. Thus, TCI’s proposal was never received by the government or under the government’s control. The agency also proffered that it could not know if TCI meant to be legally bound by its proposal in light of its failure to engage the button.
Although noting that it was not clear that FAR 15.208 even applied to this FAR Part 16 procurement, GAO nevertheless agreed with the agency and found that TCI failed to submit its proposal. GAO reiterated the well-established rule that an offeror is responsible for delivering its proposal to the designated place by the designated time and that an agency is not required to consider a proposal when there is no evidence that it was “actually received” by the agency.
GAO found that there was no evidence that TCI had actually submitted its proposal to the agency as the electronic submission of a legally binding offer was not completed. TCI did not dispute that it tried to use the submit button after the 2:00 p.m. EST deadline. And TCI never engaged the button even though it tried to do so. TCI’s failure to engage the button meant that it had never submitted a legally binding proposal. GAO concluded that it had “no basis to challenge the agency’s decision that it had not received, and could not consider, TCI’s draft proposal.”
Contractors should take extra care when submitting a proposal electronically to ensure that all proper submittal steps for the submission of a legally binding proposal have been completed well before a proposal deadline.
Additionally, a proposal stored on a government portal may not be sufficient to establish it was in the government’s control.”
Jason N. Workmaster is of counsel and Julia Lippman is an associate in the government contracts practice at Covington & Burling LLP.