Wifcon.Forum Archives

To Contents	Reviving an RFP after Closing Date
By Mike on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:52 am: Does anyone know of any case law which would allow one to establish a new closing date for an RFP after the initial closing has past? In this specific case I'm asking about, no offers were received. When another CO asked my opinion about this my initial reaction was that we had to cancel and resolicit. However, after thinking about it for a minute, I questioned whether or not that was true. Given that we had no proposals, no one would be at a competive disadvantage if we merely established a new closing date. Ironically, if a late proposal were to come in today, we could accept it because it is the only proposal, but I'm not aware of anything which explicity allows us to extend after closing, even though this would appear to promote competition to a greater extent than accepting a late proposal.) By Anonymous on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 08:26 am: Mike: I don't know if GAO has made a protest decision about whether or not you can change the RFP closing date after receipt of proposals, but GAO has reported at least one decision in which it happened. See The Minjares Building Maintenance Company, B-184263, 55 Comp. Gen. 864, 76-1 CPD ¶ 168 (1976). That was a GSA procurement. According to the GAO the agency "rescheduled" the closing date after receipt of proposals. The case does not provide any details. FAR does not prohibit you from changing the RFP closing date after receipt of proposals, and since proposals are not disclosed to the public I can't think of any reason why you can't do it. By Charlie Dan on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:59 pm: Even more recent than the 1976 CompGen decision noted above, FAR 1.102 says: (d) The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority." So, you should ask whether anything prohibits such an extension, rather than trying to identify something that specifically allows it. Personally, I would first talk to those firms on your original source list and try to find out why they didn't propose. Maybe there's something in the RFP that can be revised. I might contact other potential sources, maybe even issue a new CBD announcement. Then, I would extend. By carol elliott on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 01:12 pm: Are sure that the due date was the problem? What do you do if you establish a new closing date and still get no proposals? I would have to ask if the reason you didn't get any responses wasn't related to some of the terms of the RFP or scope specifications. It may be worthwhile to contact some of the firms you expected to respond and find out why they didn't submit a proposal. If there are problems with the solicitation, you are better off identifying them now and correcting the solicitation instead of trying to resolve them during negotiations. Opening a dialog at this point with the potential offerors might require issuing a new solicitation instead of just issuing a mod to the existing RFP, but could save time down the road. By joel hoffman on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 07:32 am: Carol has a good point. I'd advise you to amend the solicitation to extend the date, contact some firms, as Carol suggests, determine why there was no interest, then consider either amending the solicitation terms or canceling and starting over with a marketable package. If keeping the RFP open makes more sense than starting fresh, by all means do it. Nothing prohibits you from doing it. I say, don't look for "permission" to do it, use your judgement. If it makes sense, in this particular instance, and there is no PROHIBITION against doing it, I'd do it. However, I'd definitely try to determine why you had no apparent interest and fix it. Happy Sails! By Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:54 pm: Certainly there's nothing illegal about extending and RFP's due date even after the date for receipt of proposals passes. GAO has often blessed the agency doing this when there was a proposal [NOT an ifb] that was a little bit late. In those cases, the government might have had a concern that the government had some responsibility for the lateness, even if it wasn't the kind of issue on which GAO would sustain a protest. I've seen instances where the government's clock was so far off from real time that it was fair to decide to extend the due date/time, even though GAO precedent clearly says that it's the government's clock that counts. In your situation, you're not doing anything unfair by extending the due date and there's no legal prohibition. From a protest lawyer's viewpoint, there's probably no one with standing to challenge the action - no one's ox is being gored.

Reviving an RFP after Closing Date

By Mike on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:52 am:

Does anyone know of any case law which would allow one to establish a new closing date for an RFP after the initial closing has past?

In this specific case I'm asking about, no offers were received. When another CO asked my opinion about this my initial reaction was that we had to cancel and resolicit. However, after thinking about it for a minute, I questioned whether or not that was true. Given that we had no proposals, no one would be at a competive disadvantage if we merely established a new closing date.

Ironically, if a late proposal were to come in today, we could accept it because it is the only proposal, but I'm not aware of anything which explicity allows us to extend after closing, even though this would appear to promote competition to a greater extent than accepting a late proposal.)

By Anonymous on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 08:26 am:

Mike:

I don't know if GAO has made a protest decision about whether or not you can change the RFP closing date after receipt of proposals, but GAO has reported at least one decision in which it happened. See The Minjares Building Maintenance Company, B-184263, 55 Comp. Gen. 864, 76-1 CPD ¶ 168 (1976). That was a GSA procurement. According to the GAO the agency "rescheduled" the closing date after receipt of proposals. The case does not provide any details.

FAR does not prohibit you from changing the RFP closing date after receipt of proposals, and since proposals are not disclosed to the public I can't think of any reason why you can't do it.

By Charlie Dan on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:59 pm:

Even more recent than the 1976 CompGen decision noted above, FAR 1.102 says:

(d) The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority."

So, you should ask whether anything prohibits such an extension, rather than trying to identify something that specifically allows it. Personally, I would first talk to those firms on your original source list and try to find out why they didn't propose. Maybe there's something in the RFP that can be revised. I might contact other potential sources, maybe even issue a new CBD announcement. Then, I would extend.

By carol elliott on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 01:12 pm:

Are sure that the due date was the problem? What do you do if you establish a new closing date and still get no proposals?

I would have to ask if the reason you didn't get any responses wasn't related to some of the terms of the RFP or scope specifications. It may be worthwhile to contact some of the firms you expected to respond and find out why they didn't submit a proposal. If there are problems with the solicitation, you are better off identifying them now and correcting the solicitation instead of trying to resolve them during negotiations.

Opening a dialog at this point with the potential offerors might require issuing a new solicitation instead of just issuing a mod to the existing RFP, but could save time down the road.

By joel hoffman on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 07:32 am:

Carol has a good point. I'd advise you to amend the solicitation to extend the date, contact some firms, as Carol suggests, determine why there was no interest, then consider either amending the solicitation terms or canceling and starting over with a marketable package.

If keeping the RFP open makes more sense than starting fresh, by all means do it. Nothing prohibits you from doing it. I say, don't look for "permission" to do it, use your judgement. If it makes sense, in this particular instance, and there is no PROHIBITION against doing it, I'd do it. However, I'd definitely try to determine why you had no apparent interest and fix it. Happy Sails!

By Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 - 12:54 pm:

Certainly there's nothing illegal about extending and RFP's due date even after the date for receipt of proposals passes. GAO has often blessed the agency doing this when there was a proposal [NOT an ifb] that was a little bit late. In those cases, the government might have had a concern that the government had some responsibility for the lateness, even if it wasn't the kind of issue on which GAO would sustain a protest. I've seen instances where the government's clock was so far off from real time that it was fair to decide to extend the due date/time, even though GAO precedent clearly says that it's the government's clock that counts. In your situation, you're not doing anything unfair by extending the due date and there's no legal prohibition. From a protest lawyer's viewpoint, there's probably no one with standing to challenge the action - no one's ox is being gored.