Syncon, LLC v. United States, 21-1035

Background

NAVFAC MIDLANT issued an IDIQ MACC solicitation requiring separate technical and price proposals, with electronic submissions via the DOD SAFE portal and a solicitation clause that DOD SAFE timestamps govern timeliness.
Multiple amendments changed due dates; Amendment 0015 (Jan. 22, 2021) extended the electronic price proposal deadline to Jan. 25, 2021 but was later rescinded by the contracting officer after an agency-level protest.
Syncon and Hourigan timely submitted technical proposals but experienced problems submitting price proposals; Syncon’s DOD SAFE record shows a 4:26 p.m. submission on Jan. 19, 2021 (after the Jan. 19 deadline), and DISA reported Hourigan had no timely submission recorded.
The CO first extended the deadline (Amendment 0015) to enhance competition, then rescinded it after concluding the extension conflicted with FAR’s "late is late" rule, relying on this court’s Geo‑Seis decision.
The CO and DISA investigated across two remands; DISA reported many successful uploads during the relevant period and that DOD SAFE logs only record successful uploads, concluding no system-wide malfunction.
The CO found none of FAR 52.215-1’s exceptions (government control, unanticipated event, sole offeror, early receipt) applied; the court upheld the CO’s decisions and denied plaintiffs’ motions for judgment on the administrative record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rescission of Amendment 0015 was arbitrary or unlawful	Rescission was wrongful because GAO precedent permitted nunc pro tunc extensions and Amendment 0015 made plaintiffs’ submissions timely	Rescission was a lawful corrective action because Amendment 0015 conflicted with FAR’s “late is late” rule and Geo‑Seis II correctly interprets FAR	Court: Rescission was reasonable and lawful; CO properly relied on this court’s Geo‑Seis II interpretation
Whether the unanticipated‑event exception to FAR 52.215‑1(c)(3)(iv) applies	Upload failures indicate an unanticipated government-side interruption preventing receipt by DOD SAFE	DISA’s logs show numerous successful uploads and no interruption; external (offeror-side) factors can explain failures	Court: Exception does not apply; no evidence DOD SAFE suffered an interruptive event that prevented receipt
Whether the government‑control exception applies to Syncon	Syncon’s browser screenshots and witness statements show a timely upload that was within government control before the deadline	DOD SAFE records show no successful receipt before the deadline; screenshots don’t prove a successful upload or government control	Court: Exception does not apply; no recorded receipt or other convincing evidence that government had control before deadline
Whether injunctive relief is warranted	Plaintiffs seek injunction to force evaluation including their proposals	Government contends plaintiffs failed on the merits so injunctive factors need not be reached	Court: Plaintiffs failed on the merits; injunction denied; judgment for defendant

Key Cases Cited

Geo‑Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 633 (2007) (interpreting FAR’s “late is late” rule and rejecting GAO practice of nunc pro tunc post‑deadline extensions)
Dell Federal Sys., L.P. v. United States, 906 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (agency corrective actions reviewed under a deferential rational‑basis standard)
Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (four‑factor test for permanent injunctive relief)
Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (agencies must follow applicable law and regulations)
Argencord Machinery & Equipment, Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 167 (2005) (characterizing FAR’s timeliness rule as strict with limited exceptions)