Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

With Electronic Proposals, Sometimes Even On-time Submissions Can Be Late

By Steven A. Neeley on April 27, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Punctual people often live by the maxim: “If you’re early, you’re on time. If you’re on time, you’re late.” When submitting electronic proposals under FAR 52.212-1, those are words to live by. Even if you submit your electronic proposal on time, and even if it reaches government servers before the proposal deadline, it might still be considered late if it gets caught in the agency’s spam folder or email quarantine.

This was exactly the case in VERSA Integrated Solutions, Inc., B-420530 (Apr. 13, 2022). VERSA, an 8(a) small business, submitted an electronic proposal under an RFP seeking audio and visual support services for the Department of Health and Human Services. The RFP established two phases. Phase 1 required electronic submissions on corporate experience and technical approach by 12pm ET on November 12, 2021 to an agency email address. HHS would then evaluate Phase 1 proposals to decide who would advance to Phase 2. There was no dispute that VERSA submitted its Phase 1 proposal to the agency email address prior to the deadline. Three months later, VERSA asked HHS for an update and was told that its proposal was never received. Following an investigation on the agency’s end, HHS determined that VERSA’s proposal was quarantined by the government’s email server because it contained macro files that can contain malicious code.

One might think that would resolve the matter. VERSA’s proposal clearly reached the government’s server before the deadline but was quarantined and did not arrive to the CO for reasons beyond VERSA’s control. So VERSA’s proposal should be evaluated to proceed to Phase 2, right? Not according to GAO.

GAO noted that offerors bear responsibility for getting their proposals “to the proper place at the proper time.” Although VERSA seemingly did that here, GAO noted that FAR 52.212-1(f) requires that electronic proposals be submitted early to not risk being late. Specifically, FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)(A) requires that electronic proposals be submitted by 5:00pm one working day prior to the proposal deadline:

Any offer, modification, revision, or withdrawal of an offer received at the Government office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer would not unduly delay the acquisition; and —

    • If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00pm one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers . . . .

VERSA did not meet the one-day prior deadline. They submitted their proposal on time, but not early. And when it comes to electronic proposals, if you’re only on time, you’re late.

For those who have encountered this situation before with hard copy proposals, you may have found that all you had to do was provide evidence showing that the proposal was under the government’s control prior to the proposal deadline. That is because, at least on its face, FAR 52.212-1(f) makes a distinction between electronic transmission and hard copy submissions. Subpart (A) of the provision (copied above) deals with electronic submissions, so those proposals do not get the benefit of the language in subpart (B). GAO has consistently recognized this distinction since 2002. VERSA asked GAO to reconsider its position on this point but GAO declined.

So the next time you find yourself submitting an electronic proposal on a solicitation for a commercial item, send the proposal one day early just in case.

Photo of Steven A. Neeley Steven A. Neeley

Steve focuses his litigation and arbitration practice on government contracts, renewable energy, and construction projects. He began his career litigating construction disputes on federal government projects, but clients quickly began looking to Steve for guidance on all of their government contracting needs.

Read more about Steven A. NeeleyEmailSteven's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Government Contracts
  • Blog:
    The Contractor's Perspective
  • Organization:
    Husch Blackwell LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo