If you asked me a few years ago what an “online portal” was, I would have said it was the thing in Stargate SG-1 that took MacGyver to alien planets. These days, I would assume it was some type of internet marketplace.
Online portals are seemingly everywhere. From banks to fast food to department stores to the ever-present, mom-and-pop threatening, named-after-the-rapidly-deforested Amazon.com, ordering through web portals is a staple of everyday life. Even federal agencies are turning to portals for managing proposal submissions.
While generally helpful, using an online portal can occasionally be quite frustrating (looking at you, PayPal). In the case of federal procurements, the online portal issues can have significant consequences. As one contractor painfully learned, issues with online portal submission can lead to proposal rejection. This is particularly true when you neglect to hit the “submit” button.
Today’s example comes from GAO’s decision in People, Technology and Processes, LLC, B-419385 et al. (Comp. Gen. Feb. 2, 2021). The case involved a GSA procurement for mission product distribution on behalf of the Army. The competition was restricted to Pool 1 of GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (“OASIS”) contract.
As relevant here, contractors were required to submit proposals through GSA’s ASSIST online portal. The ASSIST portal would also require contractors to manually enter labor rates for each contract line-item and upload copies of their various proposal volumes. Proposals were due by 4:00 PM EST on October 13, 2020. No other proposal submission option was provided in the Solicitation.
People, Technology and Processes, LLC (“PTP”) logged onto the ASSIST system in the afternoon of October 13 to submit its proposal. According to PTP, it quickly encountered issues. While PTP was able to upload proposal attachments to the system, issues occurred with the contract line-item pricing. As GAO summarizes, “while entering PTP’s proposal data through ASSIST, including uploading PTP’s proposal attachments, the ASSIST system unexpectedly closed, logging PTP out in the process.”
PTP logged back into the ASSIST system but realized it would be unable to complete the transcription of its labor rates before the proposal deadline. Consequently, PTP sent its proposal by email to the Contracting Officer at 4:00 PM EST. The email was received by the Contracting Officer at 4:01 PM EST. In subsequent emails, PTP further explained its issues to the Contracting Officer.
In light of PTP’s allegations, GSA opened an investigation into the ASSIST system. The investigation unearthed some interesting results. First, GSA was able to find the proposal volumes PTP uploaded to ASSIST. Second, GSA collected time stamps for each action PTP took within the ASSIST portal. These included logins, as well as “button” clicks. Interestingly, the ASSIST portal never recorded PTP clicking the “submit” button. Third, there was no indication the ASSIST system experienced any type of widespread outage.
Following its investigation, GSA concluded PTP’s proposal was not submitted in accordance with the solicitation’s criteria and rejected it. PTP promptly protested its elimination.
PTP’s protest argued two main points. First, PTP alleged that its proposal was successfully uploaded to ASSIST. Second, assuming the ASSIST submission was insufficient, PTP contends it timely submitted its proposal by email. GAO was not persuaded.
With respect to its ASSIST submission, GAO concluded the proposal had not actually been submitted. As GAO explained, a submitted proposal must be under the government’s control, which is to say “that an offeror must, at a minimum, have relinquished custody of the proposal to the government.” While the ASSIST system did save copies of PTP’s uploads, those were not transmitted to the contracting officer and were only retrieved during the investigation into PTP’s alleged issues. PTP would have been free to upload new copies. Devastatingly, the ASSIST logs also record no instances of the PTP hitting the “submit” button. Consequently, GAO concluded that PTP never relinquished control of its proposal under the ASSIST portal before the proposal deadline, so no proposal was submitted.
Turning to PTP’s email, GAO was similarly unpersuaded. Proposal submission through ASSIST was the only process approved by the Solicitation. As such, GAO concluded PTP’s use of email did not conform to the terms of the Solicitation. Additionally, GAO also concluded the submission was late. Despite being transmitted earlier, the Contracting Officer was not in receipt of the email until 4:01 PM EST. This was after the proposal submission deadline, and PTP did not qualify for any of the late proposal acceptance procedures anticipated by the FAR.
Accordingly, GAO denied PTP’s protest.
Ultimately, PTP’s experience is another cautionary proposal submission tale published by GAO. Countless GAO decisions have denied protests where contractors experienced technical difficulties in the final hours and minutes before a proposal deadline. As PTP learned the hard way, neither GAO, nor agencies have significant sympathy for late proposal submissions caused by individual technical glitches.
So, what can we take away from GAO’s decision? The most fundamental take away is to click the submit button. More generally, however, PTP’s experience demonstrates why contractors must leave adequate time ahead of proposal submissions to address technical problems. Regardless of how tedious the proposal submission process is, agencies and GAO expect contractors to adapt and correct submission errors.
If only PTP had a stargate to go back in time. For the time being, we’ll have to leave that to Richard Dean Anderson.