Protest alleging that RFP’s qualification deadline was unduly burdensome is denied. The RFP required offerors’ products had to be approved for the agency’s qualified product list by a certain date. The protester alleged this qualification deadline was unduly burdensome because few offerors could meet it. The protestester contended that extending the deadline would result in more competition. GAO, however, found the agency was not required to extend the deadline to maximize competition. Rather, the agency had struck a reasonable balance between its current needs and the need for competition.
Background
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued RFPs seeking computed tomography systems for checkpoint screening of carry-on bags at airports. The RFP specified that offerors’ products must complete qualification testing and be added to the agency’s qualified product list (QPL) to be eligible for award. The RFP initially required QPL qualification by April 2, 2021. A prospective offeror, Smiths Detection, requested an extension of the deadline. TSA agreed to extend the QPL deadline to January 4, 2022.
A couple months later, Smiths requested a second extension. TSA did not immediately grant the extension. Smiths protested, arguing that the current January 4, 2022 date was unduly restrictive. Smiths contended that several offerors could not qualify before the January deadline, so TSA should extend the deadline to maximize competition
Legal Analysis
- Agency Didn’t Need to Extend Qualification Deadline — An agency does not need to delay satisfying its own needs in order to allow a particular offeror more time to meet government requirements. Moreover, an agency need not forgo meeting current needs in order to allow more competition. Here, GAO found that the balance to be struck between meeting current needs versus more competition weighed heavily in favor of TSA’s discretion to move forward with the procurement in order to address critical matters of public safety. The agency did not need to extend the qualification deadline to maximize competition.
- Other Protest Arguments Were Premature — Smiths also argued (1) the current QPL deadline was unreasonable because it could result in a sole source award, and (2) TSA had not promptly administered the QPL qualification process. GAO found both the arguments premature. It was impossible to know, at this point, whether only a single source would be qualified byJanuary 4. Also, it was possible that TSA could approve Smiths’ and others’ products before the January 4 deadline, so it was not clear TSA had delayed in discharging its qualification duties.
Smiths is represented by Jonathan D. Shaffer, and Ashley N. Amen of Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC. The agency is represented by Christopher J. Reames, Tom McGivern, and Michael Kiffney of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Evan D. Wesser and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
