No Prejudicial Error
However, there was no connection between the government's method of transmission error and the contractor's failure to secure the contract. Instead, the government disqualified the protester from further consideration because the protester's response to the amendment was late. The protester was the only offeror to submit a late response and its untimely submission constituted an independently sufficient ground for rejection. There are inherent competitive advantages to submitting a proposal after all parties are required to do so. To avoid potential for abuse, submission deadlines are strictly enforced. Unlike the transmission method error, which was not relevant to the protester's removal from the competition, the late submission prevented the protester from having a substantial chance at receiving the award. Accordingly, the protester failed to establish standing to challenge the award and the CFC had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction. (Labatt Food Service, Inc. v. U.S., CA-FC, 53 CCF ¶79,160)
(The news featured above is a selection from the news covered in the Government Contracts Report Letter, which is published weekly and distributed to subscribers of the Government Contracts Reporter. )