Protest of Denial of Request for Closing Date Extension

A firm protested the denial of its request for an extension of the closing date for receipt of proposals and the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for security guard services. The protester contended that DOE failed to furnish procurement materials on time and that the agency's refusal to extend the closing date precluded the protester from competing on an equal basis with other offerors. In addition, the firm asserted that the solicitation should have been formally advertised rather than negotiated. The RFP advised prospective offerors that a preproposal conference would be held. Data requested by the protester and other firms were reproduced and mailed to the contractors. The RFP was amended to incorporate matters dicussed at the conference, including the determination that the closing date would not be extended. The DOE Source Evaluation Board (SEB) denied the request on the basis that no firm had been placed at a disadvantage in submitting a proposal and that a sufficient number of proposals were received to ensure adequate competition for these services. The firm protested the SEB denial to GAO. SEB reviewed and determined that the proposal was technically unacceptable. The protester was notified that it could request a formal debriefing about the evaluation after the contract was awarded. Subsequently, the protester amended its protest to object to the use of negotiation procedures and the rejection of its proposal. GAO held that the contention that the procurement method chosen constituted an alleged solicitation deficiency which was evident and should have been protested before the closing date for receipt of initial proposals was untimely filed when it was first raised in the protester's comments on the contracting agency's report. The protester was informed of the basis for its rejection and had 10 working days to respond. It responded 6 weeks after receipt of the letter; therefore, the protest was untimely. The DOE refusal to extend the closing date was not a basis for protest since there was no evidence that the firm was restrained from competing. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.