Bannum Inc.

B-411340 Jul 08, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the decision of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to decline to extend the closing date for proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-1268-ES, for Residential Reentry Center (RRC) and home confinement services for Federal offenders in Savannah, Georgia. Bannum asserts that the agency's decision not to extend the closing date was unreasonable. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:      Bannum, Inc. File:                B-411340 Date:              July 8, 2015 Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. William D. Robinson, Esq., and Nihar Vora, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting officer’s decision to reject request to extend the closing date for proposals by three weeks was not objectionable where the agency reasonably concluded that further delays (after a prior two week extension) would jeopardize the contract award date required in order to maintain continuity of services. DECISION Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the decision of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to decline to extend the closing date for proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-1268-ES, for Residential Reentry Center (RRC) and home confinement services for Federal offenders in Savannah, Georgia.  Bannum asserts that the agency’s decision not to extend the closing date was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 15, 2014, BOP issued a request for information (RFI) regarding the availability of RRC and home confinement services in the Savannah area.  AR, Tab 3, RFI.  On December 10, the agency issued a presolicitation notice advising potential offerors that the agency would be issuing a solicitation for RRC and home confinement services within the city limits of Savannah “on or about January 12, 2015,” with “an estimated closing date . . . on or about March 13, 2015.”  AR, Tab 4, Presolicitation Notice. The RFP here was issued on January 12, 2015, with a closing date of March 13.  AR, Tab 6, RFP at 1.  The RFP provided for award of a single indefinite‑delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide in-house RRC and home confinement services in Savannah, for a base year and four options years.  RFP at 4.  Pertinent here, the RFP anticipated that performance would begin on January 1, 2016, and provided:  “The Contractor’s facility must be fully operational and ready for performance to begin within 120 days after the date of contract award.”  RFP at 10.  The RFP further advised: “The anticipated period(s) of performance are based on the assumptions that funds are available and the Government will make award by September 2, 2015.”  Id. On March 10, three days before the due date for proposals, the contracting officer received from Bannum an email request for an extension of the proposal deadline: Bannum is respectfully requesting a 3-week extension of the due date for proposals in response to RFP-200-1268-ES . . . in order for Bannum to finalize property negotiations. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. AR, Tab 7.  The contracting officer responded the same day: Based on the time line I can provide a 2 week extension of the due date for proposal in response to RFP-200-1268-ES . . . .  Please check FBO [FedBizOps] for updates. Id.   On March 10, RFP amendment No. 003 was issued, extending the due date to March 27.  AR, Tab 4, RFP Amendments, at 4.   On March 24, Bannum again emailed the contracting officer, requesting a further extension:  “Due to a death in the family of the property owner/seller, we are unable to obtain a response; therefore, Bannum is requesting a short 5-day extension of the proposal due date.  AR, Tab 8, at 1-2.  The contracting officer responded the same day denying the request:  “Due to current demands and milestones we are unable to further extend the closing date of RFP200-1268-ES Savannah, GA.”  Id. On March 26, Bannum filed an agency-level protest asserting that the refusal to grant a further 5-day extension was an abuse of discretion and requesting a 3 week extension of the closing date.  AR, Tab 9 at 1.  In its agency-level protest, Bannum advised that the owner of the property that it intended to buy in order to perform the contract “was no longer interested in selling the property.”  Id.