About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-183543 1 (1975-07-01)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaddid0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 1IT FILE: B-183543 DATE: July 1, 1975 MATTER OF: Kirschner Associates, Inc. DIGEST: Where proposal package was received in proper office'by required time, and such receipt was verified by procure- ment personnel in response to offeror's telephone call, but without reference to offeror's mislabeling of package with non-existent RFP number, proposal may be considered timely received, notwithstanding return of package to offeror unopened as result of incorrect labeling, and subsequent resubmission after closing date for submission of proposals but before award. Kirschner Associates, Inc. (Kirschner) protests the rejection of its proposal for an assessment of the status of bi-lingual vocational training, submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. 75-26, issued by the Office of Education (CE), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Initial proposals were due in the OE Application Control Center (ACC) by 3:30 P.M., March 7, 1975, and the Kirschner hand-carried proposal package, although erroneously sent to the address designated in the RFP for mailed offers, was received in the ACC on the morning of March 7. However, Kirschner had transposed two numbers on the face of the proposal package, so that the package indicated that it contained a proposal for RFP No. 76-25 (a non-existent RFP), rather than for RFP.No. 75-26. Prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, a Kirschner employee telephoned the ACC and asked whether Kirschner's proposal had been received. The record conflicts as to the manner by which either party to the conversation identified the package, but it is clear that the ACC employee did, at the least, verify receipt of a proposal submitted by Kirschner. As a result of Kirschner's mis- labeling, however, ACC personnel assumed that the proposal was in response to RFP No. 75-25, under which initial proposals had been due four days earlier, and therefore Kirschner's proposal was rejected as late in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Solicitation Instructions and Conditions relative to late proposals. The package was returned to Kirschner where, upon receipt on March 24, it was reshipped to the ACC with the indication that it was intended for RFP No. 75-26. The proposal has been evaluated by OE, but further-action is being with- held pending a decision by this Office as to whether the proposal may be considered for award. PULISHIED DECISION - 1 - 55 Comp. Gen.......

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most