_____________________________________________ DENIED IN PART: January 4, 1999 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 11957-P, 11958-P COMPUTER SALES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Protester, and MEMOREX TELEX CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Ned W. Livornese, Colorado Springs, CO, and Lorraine S. Cherrick, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, counsel for Protester Computer Sales International, Inc. William A. Roberts, III, Lee Curtis, and Anne H. Warner of Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester Memorex Telex Corporation. COL Riggs L. Wilks, Jr., MAJ Charles R. Marvin, Jr., and CAPT Sophia Rafatjah, Office of the Chief Trial Attorney, Department of the Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges HENDLEY, BORWICK, AND VERGILIO. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background Protesters, Computer Sales International and Memorex Telex Corporation, request an immediate grant of the protests and relief in the form of suspension of respondent's delegation of procurement authority for alleged violation of respondent's duty of prompt notification of award. 10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(B) (1988); 48 CFR 15.1001(a), (c) (1991); American Service Corp., GSBCA 8224-P, 85-3 BCA 18,517, 1985 BPD 115. The parties have proceeded on this issue by record submission pursuant to Rule 11. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that protesters have not met their burden of demonstrating respondent's neglect of its duty of prompt notification and deny relief on this issue. This consolidated protest involves a procurement by the Department of the Army for direct access storage devices. Six proposals were received from all offerors including offers from protesters. Contracting Officer's Notice of Award dated July 14, 1992. Award was made on July 14 to Federal Systems Group Incorporated. That same day, the contracting officer signed letters of notification of award to each of the non-selected offerors. Declaration dated August 6, 1992, of Contracting Officer Samette Wright (Wright Declaration). The letters were processed through respondent's installation for immediate mailing. Id. On July 20, one unsuccessful vendor received its notification, while another received its notification on July 21. Id. On July 22, Memorex Telex received its copy of the award notification, while Computer Sales International received its notification on July 27. Stipulated Facts. On July 31, Computer Sales International filed its protest, while Memorex Telex filed its protest on August 3. Stipulated Facts. Delivery of the equipment was scheduled for August 10. Discussion Protesters have not demonstrated that the contracting officer's actions were not intended to effectuate prompt notification of award to the unsuccessful offerors. She drafted and sent award notifications for mailing the same day as the award, i.e., on July 14. The receipt of the notification by one unsuccessful offeror on July 20--six calendar days and four working days after July 14--suggests that the award notifications promptly left respondent's installation. Protesters have introduced no evidence which would suggest mishandling by the agency. The delay until July 27 of receipt by Computer Sales International may then have been due to delays in delivery by the United States Postal Service. Should that have occurred, delivery delays by the Postal Service cannot be charged to the contracting officer. LAGO Systems, Inc., GSBCA 11536-P, et al., 92-1 BCA 24,551, 1991 BPD 285 (1991). In light of the agency assertions, Computer Sales has not demonstrated a violation of statute or regulation. Memorex Telex has not shown prejudice by its receipt of the notification on July 22. Memorex Telex had two days to file its protest so as to request a suspension in a timely manner. It chose to wait until August 3 to file its protest and thus is in no position to complain. See RMTC Systems, Inc., GSBCA 11307-P, 91-3 BCA 24,142, 1991 BPD 149. Decision The protests on the issue of prompt notification are DENIED. ________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge