In re Linguistic Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | B-193853 |
| Citation | 58 Comp.Gen. 403 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF LINGUISTIC SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, APRIL 10, 1979: |
| Court | Comptroller General of the United States |
Contracts - protests - procedures - bid protest procedures - time for filing - mail gram transmission of protest mail gram protesting alleged improprieties in request for proposals whose receipt was recorded by general accounting office (GAO) after closing date for receipt of proposals, is untimely and ineligible for consideration where mail gram did not evidence a date of transmission at least 3 days prior to final date for filing a protest. 4 C.F.R. 20.2(b)(3). Contracts - protests - procedures - bid protest procedures - time for filing - time of receipt establishment GAO bid protest control unit time/date stamp is prima facie evidence of time of receipt of bid protest at GAO, and absent affirmative evidence to the contrary to show actual timely receipt time/date stamp controls.
Linguistic systems, incorporated (linguistic) protests various alleged improprieties in request for proposals no. F 33657-79-r-0078 issued by the wright-patterson air force base, Ohio. The date set for receipt of proposals was December 29, 1978.
The protest was sent to the general accounting office (GAO) by mail gram addressed to the bid protest control unit and was transmitted by the postal service to Washington, D.C. On December 29, 1978, at 1:06 a.M. The protest was recorded as received by the GAO bid protest control unit at 9:35 a.M. On January 4, 1979.
Our bid protest procedures require that a protest based upon alleged improprieties in a request for proposals be "filed" prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R 20.2(b)(1) (1978). The term "filed" means receipt in gao. 4 C.F.R. 20.2(b)(3). Thus the protest on its face was not timely.
However protester has furnished a statement from the postmaster in Washington, D.C. Advising that in the normal course of business, the mail gram should have been received at the postal service's Washington, D.C. Mail gram terminal at 1:22 a.M. December 29, 1978; that it should have been forwarded to the government mails section shortly after 4 a.M. The same date; and would have been dispatched to GAO no later than 9 a.M. That day. The postmaster further advises that a search of his records indicated neither a record of delayed mail nor a record of returned mail.
By way of background, ordinary mail, including mail grams, is not time and date stamped as received by the GAO central mailroom. Consequently, the first documentation of the receipt of a protest by GAO is the bid protest control unit's time/date stamp. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether or not this protest was physically present in GAO prior to the December 29 closing date, and the absence of a postal service record to indicate delayed mail is not persuasive of its actual receipt by gao. For example, although the mail gram should have been received in Washington at 1:22 a.M., there is no record to show that it actually was dispatched to GAO at 9 a.M. Moreover, the postal service advises that once a mail gram is delivered to its government mails section, it enters the ordinary uncontrolled mailstream for first class mail, so that it cannot be determined whether an individual item of mail actually arrived at its intended destination on a particular date. The time/date stamp must therefore be considered prima facie evidence of the time of receipt at this office.
For that reason, our bid protest procedures have anticipated that in the normal course of business an indeterminate amount of time will necessarily transpire between dispatch of a mail...
To continue reading
Request your trial