This post-award protest challenged the agency's decision to exclude the protester's proposal from the competition after its proposal acceptance period expired. The protester argued it had timely emailed the agency agreeing to extend its proposal's validity period, and therefore its proposal should not have been eliminated. GAO denied the protest. Offrors bear the burden of ensuring the agency actually receives communications extending proposal acceptance periods—not merely that the offeror sent them.
CVJV LLC, B-424437; B-424437.2 (Comp. Gen. July 21, 2026)
- Background - The Army issued a solicitation for multiple-award task order contracts for construction services supporting the Natick Soldier Systems Center in Massachusetts, with a combined ceiling value of $99 million. After including the protester in the competitive range, the agency sent evaluation notices and asked the protester to extend its proposal acceptance period, which was set to expire on January 23, 2026. The protester claimed it sent a response email agreeing to the extension before the January 30 deadline, but the agency never received it. The agency subsequently notified the protester that its proposal had expired and was excluded from the competition, prompting this protest.
- Receipt of the Extension Email - The protester argued that the agency improperly excluded its proposal because it had timely submitted an email agreeing to extend the proposal acceptance period. GAO disagreed and denied this ground of protest. GAO applied the long-standing rule that when an agency requests an extension of a proposal acceptance period, it is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the agency actually receives the extension—sending it is not enough. The agency's investigation, which involved the Defense Information Systems Agency and Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, revealed that while the email reached the Army's enterprise email secure gateway, it never made it to the contracting officer's inbox. The protester's transaction log only showed the email was sent, not received. Because the agency never received the extension, the proposal expired on January 23, and its elimination was reasonable.
- Systemic Failure Argument - The protester also contended that a systemic failure in the agency's email system prevented delivery of its message. GAO rejected this argument as well. GAO noted that a finding of systemic failure requires more than the occasional lost email. Here, all 15 other offerors in the competitive range successfully submitted their responses, and there was no evidence of any deliberate effort to prevent selection of the protester's proposal. Occasional lost emails, while unfortunate, do not entitle a protester to relief absent evidence of a conscious effort by agency personnel or a pattern of similar losses.
- Failure to Request Final Proposal Revisions - The protester also argued that because it was never formally removed from the competitive range, the agency was required to solicit a final proposal revision from it under FAR section 15.307(b). GAO denied this argument too. GAO explained that FAR section 15.307(a) provides that once a proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions may be accepted. Here, the protester's proposal was effectively removed because it had expired. Additionally, the protester took no affirmative steps after January 20 from which the agency could have inferred an intent to extend its proposal or continue participating—it did not contact the agency at all until after receiving the exclusion notice in April.
The protester is represented by John M. Manfredonia, Esq., of Manfredonia Law, LLC. The government is represented by Brian Weber, Esq., and Wade L. Brown, Esq., of the Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Michelle Litteken, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., participated in the decision.