Jay R. Houghton – April 6, 2012
Proposing or bidding on federal government contracts requires that a contractor strictly comply with multiple regulations, as well as the requirements stated in the agency’s solicitation (“RFP” or “IFB”). If a contractor fails to do so, the likely result is that the expensive and time consuming proposal effort is wasted because the submission is rejected as nonresponsive. Although a proposal can be rejected as non-responsive for numerous reasons, one of the more easily avoided grounds for rejection is because it was submitted late. The recent decision, Watterson Construction Co. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 84 (2011), illustrates an agency’s literal application of the rule that a proposal must be submitted on time. Fortunately, in that case the contractor’s proposal was eventually accepted, albeit one year later. However, it still presents a very serious lesson regarding the timely submittal of proposals or bids.
In Watterson Construction the offerors were allowed to submit proposals to the Corps of Engineers (“COE”) by hand delivery, regular mail, or e-mail. The proposals were due on or before 12:00 p.m. on March 16, 2010. Watterson Construction sent the e-mail containing its proposal at approximately 11:01 a.m. on that date. The proposal did not arrive at the relevant COE e-mail in-box until 12:04 p.m. and it was rejected as late.
Unbeknownst to Watterson Construction, the COE’s e-mail server was inundated by e-mails at that particular time. The resulting e-mail storm slowed the COE’s servers to a crawl delaying the delivery of all e-mails.
Although the end result was that the contractor’s proposal was ultimately found to be timely, that did not happen until more than one year later and only after Watterson Construction incurred significant expenses working to overturn the rejection decision. But why did the COE reject the proposal even after realizing that the delayed delivery was not Watterson’s fault and that it had actually sent the proposal almost an hour early? Simply put – because the COE strictly interpreted the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) governing the submittal of proposals to federal agencies as meaning that Watterson’s proposal had not “reached” or been “received” by the designated government office (in this case the e-mail in-box) before the deadline.
Fortunately, Watterson Construction clarifies how the rules governing electronic proposal submissions should be handled by the federal government. The rule that was unclear before this case states that the proposal must reach or be received by the designated government office before the deadline. Watterson argued that the designated government office was the COE’s server, not the actual designated e-mail in-box. Watterson also argued that, even if their proposal was late, the “Government Control” exception should be applied such that it should be considered because the proposal had been received at the “government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers.”
In the end, the court concluded that the proposal should be accepted because the “Government Control” exception for late submittals applied and the designated government office was the COE server. The Watterson Construction opinion contains a much more detailed analysis of a number of other applicable rules but this is a key point. But the lesson to be learned is that government agencies strictly interpret the rules governing the submittal of proposals.
Although Watterson was eventually able to have its proposal considered, the lesson here is that the earlier contractors submit their offers the better. Some might say that goes without saying. However, it all too often happens that proposals are submitted at the very last minute due to the nature of compiling sub-contractor’s proposals and finalization of the proposal. It is imperative that a contractor plan for last minute contingencies when compiling and submitting a proposal in response to a RFP on an IFB.
So, what can a contractor do to ensure the timely submittal and acceptance of a proposal?
Closely review the solicitation and confirm (then reconfirm) the due date and time, the location to which it must be delivered, and the form in which it must be delivered;
Ensure that all sub-contractor’s proposals are received as far in advance of the proposal deadline as possible;
Plan for the technology being used to submit the final proposal may break down or not be available. Redundancy is the key here. For example, have a back-up copier, computer, fax machine, and/or printer, make sure all the relevant individuals’ cell phones are charged, save multiple copies of the proposal on various media such as a hard drive and a memory stick;
If hand delivering the proposal, ensure that there are multiple ways of getting to the delivery point in case there is a traffic or security access delay; and
Last, but not least, as a general rule of thumb, assume that what can go wrong, will go wrong.