B-207309: May 17, 1982

A firm protested the General Services Administration's (GSA) action extending the timeframe within which another firm was able to submit evidence in support of an anticipated award. The protester claimed that, as second low bidder, it should have received the award, because the apparent awardee did not meet the solicitation's requirement that all evidence relating to a bidder's ability to meet con...

B-207309: May 17, 1982

DIGEST: THERE IS NO MERIT TO PROTEST THAT AGENCY IMPROPERLY EXTENDED TIME WITHIN WHICH AWARDEE MAY FURNISH EVIDENCE OF ITS ABILITY TO MEET ALL CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS. SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS A MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY AND AGENCY MAY CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF RESPONSIBILITY ANY TIME BEFORE AWARD IS MADE. IT SHOULD RECEIVE AWARD AS THE SECOND LOW BIDDER BECAUSE S & C WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE THAT...