Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

eSimplicity, Inc. v. United States

eSimplicity, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

September 28, 2022, Filed Under Seal

No. 22-543C

Opinion

 [*376]  OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff eSimplicity, Inc. protests the government's rejection of a proposal it submitted in response to a solicitation. The government determined that the proposal was untimely; eSimplicity contends that determination rests on legal error and the application of an undisclosed evaluation criterion. The parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, and I have heard oral argument.2 For the reasons  [*377]  discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED and Defendant's [**2]  motion is DENIED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. The government is ENJOINED from certain action inconsistent with this Opinion.

BACKGROUND

Submitting a proposal in response to a government solicitation means complying with strict deadlines. This Court sometimes calls that obligation the "'late is late' rule." See Insight Systems Corp. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 564, 574 (2013). Under the "late is late" rule, submissions received even moments after the deadline are disqualified unless they meet certain limited exceptions:

(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 [**3]  installation designated for receipt of offers and was under the Government's control prior to the time set for receipt of offers; or

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

162 Fed. Cl. 372 *; 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2347 **

ESIMPLICITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Subsequent History: (Reissued: October 13, 2022) [**1] 1

Dismissed by Esimplicity, Inc. v. United States, 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2632 (Fed. Cl., Dec. 20, 2022)

CORE TERMS

electronic, eSimplicity, commerce, government control, Solicitation, proposals, e-mail, server, surplusage, offers, regulation, injunctive relief, procurement, delivery, installation, designated, protests, bid, parties, public interest, batch-processed, injunction, ENJOINED, deadline, reasons, bidder, terms, electronic communication, competitive injury, submitted proposal

Public Contracts Law, Bids & Formation, Competitive Proposals, Administrative Law, Agency Adjudication, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction, Bid Protests, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Personal Stake, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Motions, Offers, Legislation, Interpretation, Burdens of Proof, Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Irreparable Harm, Computer & Internet Law, Contracts, Electronic Contracts, Digital Signatures, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel, Contracts Law, Contract Interpretation, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Creation, Remedies, Permanent Injunctions, Public Interest