Protest alleging that the agency should have extended the proposal deadline to allow offerors more time to address a solicitation amendment is denied. The amendment was informational and did not add any new requirements to the solicitation. What’s more, the protester never adequately explained why it needed more time to respond to the amendment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs issued a solicitation seeking residential housing services for homeless veterans. Three days before proposals were due, the VA amended the solicitation to add an employee class and the corresponding wage-fringe benefit information. A prospective bidder, Patriot First Professional Services, requested a seven day extension of the proposal deadline stating that it needed time to gather more information for the amendment. The VA denied the request. Patriot protested.
GAO noted there is no per se requirement to extend the closing date for a solicitation following an amendment. Rather, the denial of a request for extension is reasonable if the protester had sufficient time to address the changes made the amendment.
Here, the amendment was informational and did not add any new requirements to the solicitation. What’s more, Patriot never indicated what additional information it needed to obtain in light of the amendment or why the amended even required new information. Indeed, the record did not support Patriot’s contentions. The company had submitted the vast majority of its proposal prior to initial due date with the exception of one email that arrived 26 minutes after the proposal deadline. This suggested the seven day extension Patriot requested was unnecessary.
The protester is represented by Brian L. Grossman, Esq., Shipkevich PLLC. The agency is represented by David W. Altieri of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
GAO attorneys Jacob M. Talcott and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, participated in the preparation of the decision.
