M&C Venture Group, LLC (36C24219R0109)

B-417965 Nov 21, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Patriot First Professional Services, Inc., of Staten Island, New York, protests the agency's failure to extend the due date for proposals following an amendment to the solicitation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24219R0109, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for residential housing services for veterans at the Northport VA Medical Center in New York. Patriot contends that the denial of its extension request was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Patriot First Professional Services, Inc. File:  B-417965 Date:  November 21, 2019 Brian L. Grossman, Esq., Shipkevich PLLC, for the protester. David W. Altieri, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s refusal to extend proposal deadline is denied when agency’s refusal was reasonable. DECISION Patriot First Professional Services, Inc., of Staten Island, New York, protests the agency’s failure to extend the due date for proposals following an amendment to the solicitation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C24219R0109, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for residential housing services for veterans at the Northport VA Medical Center in New York.  Patriot contends that the denial of its extension request was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 5, 2019, the VA issued the solicitation, on an unrestricted basis, under the procedures of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15.  Memorandum of Law, exh. 2, RFP at 5.  The solicitation sought residential housing services for homeless veterans on-site at the Northport VA Medical Center in Northport, New York, and required that the contractor provide room and board, food service, laundry service, therapeutic and rehabilitative services, and case management for identified veterans.  Id. at 10-13.  The solicitation anticipated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract.  Id. at 91.  The due date for proposals was September 6, 2019, at 3:30 pm EST.  Id. at 1. There were two amendments to the solicitation prior to the September 6 due date.  RFP amend. 1 at 1; RFP amend. 2 at 1.  On September 3, the VA issued amendment 0002, which is the subject of this protest.  RFP amend. 2 at 1.  Amendment 0002 amended FAR clause 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, by adding the employee class of Guard I and providing the corresponding federal wage-fringe benefit information, i.e., GS-4 Step 1.  Id.  All other terms and conditions of the solicitation remained unchanged.  Id. Patriot emailed the contracting officer on September 4 in response to amendment 0002.  Protest at 2.  In this email, Patriot requested a seven-day extension of the due date for proposals, stating that it needed “adequate time to gather the new information.”  Id., exh. A at 3.  The contracting officer responded the same day, and denied the request for extension.  Id. at 2.  The contracting officer stated that the amendment was “minor” and “did not change the requirements” of the solicitation.  Id. Patriot emailed a second extension request to the contracting officer later that same day.  Id.  Patriot stated that although it “fully under[stood] that the amendment did not change the [requirements of the solicitation],” the amendment required it to “ask for additional information” from its insurance company, Human Resources department, and third party vendors.  Id.  The contracting officer declined the second extension request on September 5, stating that the amendment “only added additional, clarifying information” and made “no change to the information required for [Patriot’s] proposal.”  Id. at 1. Patriot submitted its proposal on September 6 through five separate emails.  Id., exh. B at 1-2.  The first four emails arrived prior to the 3:30 pm deadline; the fifth email arrived at 3:56 pm, approximately 26 minutes after the deadline.  Id. at 1.  The contracting officer notified Patriot on September 9 that the fifth email was late, and that the agency therefore considered Patriot’s proposal “significantly incomplete” and eliminated Patriot’s offer from further consideration.  Id. at 2.  Patriot then filed this protest with our Office on September 11.  Protest at 1. DISCUSSION The protester challenges the agency’s denial of its request for an extension of the due date for proposals.[1]  For the reasons discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest. There is no per se requirement that an agency extend the closing date in a negotiated procurement following an amendment to the solicitation.  Raytheon Co., B-410719.10, B-410719.11, Nov.