B-209025, SEP 23, 1982
Highlights
DIGEST: DECISION TO EXTEND THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S SUBMISSION OF A FIRST ARTICLE IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH GAO WILL NOT REVIEW UNLESS THE PROTESTER SHOWS THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED WITH THE INTENTION TO ALTER THE SCHEDULE. OR THAT THE CHANGE WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT IT DISTORTED THE COMPETITION ON WHICH THE AWARD WAS BASED. THE DECISION TO EXTEND A DELIVERY SCHEDULE IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. WHICH IS THE FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY. WE THEREFORE WILL NOT REVIEW A PROTEST AGAINST SUCH AN EXTENSION UNLESS THE PROTESTER SHOWS EITHER THAT THE PROCURING AGENCY AWARDED THE CONTRACT WITH THE INTENTION TO ALTER THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE AFTER AWARD.
B-209025, SEP 23, 1982
DIGEST: DECISION TO EXTEND THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S SUBMISSION OF A FIRST ARTICLE IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH GAO WILL NOT REVIEW UNLESS THE PROTESTER SHOWS THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED WITH THE INTENTION TO ALTER THE SCHEDULE, OR THAT THE CHANGE WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT IT DISTORTED THE COMPETITION ON WHICH THE AWARD WAS BASED.
VALHALLA SCIENTIFIC INC.:
VALHALLA SCIENTIFIC INC. PROTESTS THE AIR FORCE'S DECISION TO EXTEND THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF A FIRST ARTICLE UNDER CONTRACT NO. F33659-82-C0007 FOR "100 AMPERE HIGH CURRENT SOURCES." VALHALLA ALLEGES THAT THE AIR FORCE FOUND THE CONTRACTOR'S FIRST ARTICLE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, BUT EXTENDED THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE TO PERMIT RESUBMISSION. VALHALLA ARGUES THAT THE AIR FORCE SHOULD TERMINATE THE CONTRACT FOR DEFAULT AND REPROCURE THE ITEMS. WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.
THE DECISION TO EXTEND A DELIVERY SCHEDULE IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS THE FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, NOT THIS OFFICE. WE THEREFORE WILL NOT REVIEW A PROTEST AGAINST SUCH AN EXTENSION UNLESS THE PROTESTER SHOWS EITHER THAT THE PROCURING AGENCY AWARDED THE CONTRACT WITH THE INTENTION TO ALTER THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE AFTER AWARD, OR THAT THE CHANGE WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT IT DISTORTED THE COMPETITION ON WHICH THE AWARD WAS BASED. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCES & EQUIPMENT OHG, B-203257, AUGUST 3, 1981, 81-2 CPD 86.
THE PROTESTER BEARS THE BURDEN OF SUBMITTING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE. AMERICAN MARINE DECKING SYSTEMS, B-203748, JULY 8, 1981, 81-2 CPD 23. ALTHOUGH VALHALLA SUGGESTS THAT THE AIR FORCE'S ACTION CONSTITUTES A "CARDINAL CHANGE" TO THE CONTRACT, THE FIRM HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE PROVING THAT POINT OR SHOWING THAT OUR REVIEW OTHERWISE IS WARRANTED.
THE PROTEST IS DISMISSED.