
Publication
Generative AI: A global guide to key IP considerations
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
Federal government contractors are probably familiar with the government’s “late is late” rule, with respect to RFP responses, bid protests, etc. But does that rule apply when the company’s emailed RFP response is rejected by a government server because the email exceeded an undisclosed size limitation for email attachments?
On December 28, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the rule applied.
The GAO concluded that it was the company’s responsibility to “ensure that an electronically submitted proposal is received by—not just submitted to—the appropriate agency email address prior to the time set for closing.” In re Washington Coach Corp., File B-41380-9, Dec. 28, 2016.
On September 8, 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued an RFP for executive driver transportation services in the National Capital Region and neighboring areas. The RFP required electronic responses and directed that those responses be sent to two specified email addresses by no later than 2:00 PM on September 16, 2016.
The company sent its email RFP response at 1:19 on September 16, but did not receive any acknowledgement of receipt. The company called the contract specialist at 1:55—5 minutes before deadline—and again at 2:01, 2:05, and 2:19, attempting to confirm receipt. About a half-hour after deadline, the two Veterans Affairs designated individuals received emails from the company requesting confirmation of receipt of the RFP response.
The individuals checked with their IT Help Desk, which responded that there were 8 emails from the company on September 16 that exceeded the 10 MB size limit. Those emails did not reach the Local Exchange level but were rejected at the Trusted Internet Connection Gateways due to their size. The VA informed the company that the VA had not received the RFP response by the deadline and therefore would not consider the company’s response. The VA had received four other companies’ responses by the deadline.
As described above, the GAO determined that the company’s proposal was late, and therefore denied its protest.
Federal regulations have long made it the responsibility of the sender to deliver the RFP response, bid protest, or other document to the designated government personnel by no later than the time specified. The relevant regulation in the VA matter contains three exceptions to that general rule that can be relevant to electronic document deliveries:
(2) (i) 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—
(A) 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 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of offers; or
(B) There is acceptable evidence to establish that it was received at the Government installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or
* * * *
(4) If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that offers cannot be received at the Government office designated for receipt of offers by the exact time specified in the solicitation, and urgent Government requirements preclude amendment of the solicitation or other notice of an extension of the closing date, the time specified for receipt of offers will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume.
(Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.212-1(f).) The regulation is nicknamed the “late is late” rule.
Although subsection (2)(A) is specifically directed to electronic communications, it is the exception least used currently. The Court of Federal Claims explained in Watterson Construction Co.. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 84 (Mar. 29, 2011) the reason for its unpopularity: the exception was directed to batch computing. Today’s computers transmit data almost instantaneously, rather than saving files to send in batches once a day.
Instead, the most commonly used exception is 2(B), relating to the document being within government control. With respect to hard-copy documents, this exception could apply if, for example, the RFP response was by 5:00 PM to be delivered to John Smith at government agency ABC. As a non-governmental employee, however, you could only deliver it to the front desk of the government agency at 4:55—that should be “under the Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of offers.” With respect to electronic documents, exception 2(B) has had mixed results over the years:
“This is not to gainsay that a contractor which waits until the last moment before emailing its proposal should benefit from this exception. Rather, the court merely holds that, in the case of an electronic delivery, the Government Control exception applies where the electronic proposal is received by a government server (or comparable computer) and is under the agency’s control prior to the deadline.”
(Insight Systems Corp. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 564 (May 6, 2013) (citing Watterson).)
In light of the foregoing, any government contractor filing electronic documents with the government may wish to consider some or all of the following actions:
Publication
Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025