B-232554, Oct 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD 335
Highlights
PROCUREMENT - Socio-Economic Policies - Small businesses - Competency certification - Extension - Administrative discretion DIGEST: The granting of an additional extension to apply for a certificate of competency is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. Pye & Hogan claims that it was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. The DISC contracting officer determined that Pye & Hogan was not responsible on the basis of the preaward survey. The SBA informed Pye & Hogan that its COC application was due on August 29. The deadline was extended to September 6. It is the responsibility of the small business firm determined to be nonresponsible to file a timely. Our Office will not review an agency's refusal to grant a filing extension for a COC since granting of an extension for filing or processing a COC application is a matter solely within the contracting agency's discretion.
B-232554, Oct 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD 335
PROCUREMENT - Socio-Economic Policies - Small businesses - Competency certification - Extension - Administrative discretion DIGEST: The granting of an additional extension to apply for a certificate of competency is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, with the government's interest in proceeding with the acquisition, not the offeror's interest in obtaining an extension, controlling.
Pye & Hogan Machine Company:
Pye & Hogan Machine Company protests the failure of the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) to allow sufficient time for Pye & Hogan to complete its application for a certificate of competency (COC) in connection with solicitation No. DLA500-88-Q-0286 issued by DISC. Specifically, Pye & Hogan claims DISC acted unreasonably because of its refusal to grant an additional extension of the due date for Pye & Hogan's application for a COC determination by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Pye & Hogan claims that it was not given a proper opportunity to present its case.
Pye & Hogan received a "no award" recommendation on July 7, 1988 following a preaward survey of its facilities by the government. The DISC contracting officer determined that Pye & Hogan was not responsible on the basis of the preaward survey. The contracting officer notified Pye & Hogan of this determination on July 18, 1988, and also forwarded the matter to the SBA for consideration under the SBA's certificate of competency (COC) procedures. The SBA informed Pye & Hogan that its COC application was due on August 29, 1988. The deadline was extended to September 6, at the protester's request. Pye & Hogan requested a further extension because it claimed to need more time to prepare its application in light of the magnitude of the data required.
It is the responsibility of the small business firm determined to be nonresponsible to file a timely, complete and acceptable COC application with the SBA. ESCO Air Filters, B-225552.2, Mar. 12, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 279. Our Office will not review an agency's refusal to grant a filing extension for a COC since granting of an extension for filing or processing a COC application is a matter solely within the contracting agency's discretion. ESCO Air Filters, B-225552.2, supra. The government's interest in proceeding with the acquisition, not the offeror's interest in obtaining an extension, is the controlling factor. F. Rulison & Sons, Inc. B-230758, Apr. 18, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 379.
The protest is dismissed.