Request for Reconsideration

A firm requested reconsideration of a GAO decision. After the closing date for the receipt of offers on an invitation for bids, the contracting officials realized that the solicitation did not include two standard contract clauses. Therefore, they issued an amendment which incorporated these two clauses and established a new closing date. The protester requested a further extension of the closing date, but this was denied. The protester stated that it made no objection to the denial because it believed that the superior features offered by its product would offset any price advantage its competition might have. Upon being notified that the contract was awarded to another firm, the protester filed a protest arguing that its request for an extension of the closing date should have been granted, and the awardee could not perform as required. GAO dismissed the protest, holding that the first ground of the protest was untimely, and that its second ground of protest was a matter for the contracting agency to determine. On reconsideration, the protester argued that the denial of its request for an extension was neither fair nor in the best interests of the Government. It claimed that it was misled by procurement personnel concerning the procedures for filing a protest and the basis on which an award decision would be made. The firm contended that other agencies had tested the awardee's apparatus and found it deficient. GAO found the firm's protest on the ground of denial of an extension of the closing date was untimely and could not be considered. The protesters contention of being misled by the procurement officers was considered invalid since bid protest procedures are published in the Federal Register and protesters are charged with constructive notice of their contents. Cost may become the determining factor of contract award, if the proposals are found to be essentially equal technically. By offering brand name items, the protester's and awardee's proposals were, in effect, technically equal. Contractor responsibility is a matter for the contracting agency to decide. GAO does not review affirmative determinations of responsibility unless fraud is shown or the solicitation contains definitive responsibility criteria which have not been applied. Neither of these exceptions was present here, thus GAO had no basis to question the agency's determination. The decision was affirmed.