United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Global Automotive, Inc.

File: B-406828

Date: August 3, 2012

Timothy B. Shea, Esq., Nemirow Hu & Shea, for the protester.

George W. Ash, Esq., and Erin L. Toomey, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for Global 

Fleet Sales, LLC, the intervenor.

Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Francis O. Wey, Esq. Department of the Army, for the 

agency.

Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly eliminated the protester’s proposal from award consideration 

where the protester expressly refused to extend its proposal acceptance period as 

requested and the proposal could not be revived because it would compromise the 

integrity of the competitive bidding system.

DECISION

Global Automotive, Inc. (GAI), of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the 

award of a contract to Global Fleet Sales, LLC (GFS), of Southfield, Michigan, by 

the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command, under request for proposals

No. W56HZV-11-R-0307 for cargo vans. The protester argues that the agency 

unreasonably excluded its proposal from award consideration because its proposal 

acceptance period had expired.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP was initially issued on June 27, 2011, and sought proposals to provide 

199 Ford Transit cargo vans for use in Afghanistan. The solicitation anticipated 

award of a contract to the offeror submitting the low-priced, technically-acceptable 

proposal.

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.
Page 2 B-406828 

The Army received proposals from three offerors, including GAI and GFS, by the 

initial closing date of August 10.1

 The RFP required a proposal acceptance period 

of 30 days. The agency concluded that GAI’s and GFS’s proposals were technically 

unacceptable, and requested responses from the offerors to address the agency’s 

concerns. Contracting Officer (CO) Statement ¶ 9. Upon review of the responses, 

the agency concluded that the offerors’ proposals were technically acceptable. Id.

On September 27, the agency requested that the offerors extend their periods of 

acceptance to November 30, to provide additional time for the evaluation of 

proposals. Agency Report (AR), Tabs 15a and 15b, Agency Requests for 

Extension of Proposals (Sept. 27, 2011). GAI and GFS each agreed to extend their 

acceptance periods as requested. AR, Tabs 16a and 16b, GAI and GFS 

Responses to Requests for Extension of Proposals (Sept. 27, 2011).

In October, the Army’s pre-award survey of GAI’s proposal recommended that the 

protester not be selected for award based on a lack of capability to provide afterdelivery coverage of the vans after they were delivered to Afghanistan. AR, 

Tab 26a, GAI Pre-Award Survey, at 1. The agency opened discussions to permit 

the protester to address this and other concerns, and to revise its proposed price. 

CO Statement ¶ 14. 

On November 21, the Army requested that the offerors again extend their 

acceptance periods until January 30, 2012. AR, Tabs 17a and 17b, Agency 

Requests for Extension of Proposals (Nov. 21, 2011). GAI and GFS each agreed to 

extend their acceptance periods as requested. AR, Tabs 18a and 18b, GAI and 

GFS Responses to Requests for Extension of Proposals (Nov. 21, 2011).

Both offerors submitted revised proposals by December 14. On January 18, 2012, 

the agency concluded that the evaluation of the revised proposals would not be 

completed by the proposal acceptance date of January 30, and requested that the 

offerors extend their acceptance periods to February 29. AR, Tab 23a and 23b, 

Agency Requests for Extension of Proposals (Jan. 18, 2012). On January 19, the 

awardee agreed to extend its proposal acceptance period, as requested, to 

February 29. AR, Tab 24b, GFS Response to Extension Request (Jan. 19, 2012). 

The protester, however, informed the agency as follows: “[O]ur prices are valid until 

1 February, only and we reserve the right to adjust prices hereafter.” AR, Tab 24a, 

GAI Response to Extension Request (Jan. 19, 2012). Based on GAI’s express 

refusal to extend its acceptance period as requested, and the CO’s understanding 

that the evaluation would not be completed until after the protester’s acceptance 

date of February 1, the CO concluded that GAI would no longer be considered for 

award. CO Statement ¶ 24. 

 1 The third proposal was rejected as late. CO Statement ¶ 7. 
Page 3 B-406828 

In February, the Army found that the initial quantity of vans required was overstated, 

and the award was delayed in order to identify the agency’s actual requirements. 

Id. ¶ 26. The agency subsequently reduced its requirement from 199 to 

181 vehicles, and requested that GFS, the sole remaining offeror, agree to a 

reduction in the number of vehicles without a change in its proposed unit price. Id.

¶ 27; AR, Tab 18c, Agency Request to GFS for Extension of Proposal (Mar. 26, 

2012). The awardee agreed to the reduction, without a change to its price. Id.,

GFS Response to Request for Extension of Proposal (Mar. 26, 2012). During the 

agency’s reexamination of its requirements and exchanges with the awardee, the 

agency requested three extensions of GFS’s acceptance period, each of which was 

agreed to by the awardee. Id., Requests for Extension of Proposal and Responses 

(Feb. 16-Mar. 26, 2012).

The Army awarded the contract to GFS on April 10, and notified GAI of the award. 

The letter advising the protester of the award also explained that the protester’s 

proposal had been excluded from award consideration because GAI had been 

found non-responsible based on an “unsatisfactory finding under the factors of 

Technical and Quality Assurance capabilities . . . [in accordance with Federal 

Acquisition Regulation §] 9.104-3(b) ‘Satisfactory performance record.’” AR, 

Tab 32, Letter from Army to GAI (Apr. 10, 2012). The Army provided a debriefing to 

GAI on May 1, which provided more information concerning the non-responsibility

determination. AR, Tab 32b, Debriefing Letter (May 1, 2012). On May 9, GAI filed 

an agency-level protest, challenging the agency’s evaluation of its proposal. 

On May 22, the Army denied the agency-level protest. The agency explained that 

the bases for rejecting GAI’s proposal set forth in the notice of award and debriefing 

were “incorrect.” AR, Tab 35, Agency Protest Decision, at 1. The Army explained, 

however, that “[t]he underlying basis for the Government not considering GA[I]’s 

proposal was the result of GA[I] failing to extend its offer for the minimum required 

acceptance period.” Id. at 2. On June 1, GAI filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

GAI primarily argues that the Army unreasonably eliminated its proposal from award 

consideration, and should have allowed it to revive its expired proposal. For the 

reasons discussed below, we find no basis to sustain the protest.

GAI does not dispute that it expressly refused to extend offer to February 29, 2012, 

as required by the agency, and instead limited the acceptance period to February 1. 

The protester argues, however, that the agency should have permitted it to revive 

its proposal.

A solicitation’s minimum acceptance period is a material requirement. Banknote 

Corp. of Am., Inc., B-278514, Feb. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 41 at 3. An offeror’s 

compliance with a solicitation’s acceptance period is required so that all offerors 
Page 4 B-406828 

share the same business risks of leaving their bids or proposals open for 

acceptance by the government for the same amount of time. See General Elevator 

Co., Inc., B-226976, April 7, 1987, 87-1 CPD ¶ 385 at 2. 

Where a proposal has expired, we have recognized that an offeror may extend its 

acceptance period and revive its proposal if doing so would not compromise the 

integrity of the competitive bidding system. BioGenesis Pacific, Inc., B–283738, 

Dec. 14, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 109 at 6. Circumstances that compromise the system's 

integrity include an offeror’s express or implied refusal of a request to extend its bid, 

and a subsequent request to revive the proposal subject to the offeror’s own 

interests. Ocean Servs., LLC, B-404690, Apr. 6, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 73 at 3. An 

offeror who is allowed to specify a shorter acceptance period would enjoy an unfair 

competitive advantage because it would be able to refuse the award after its bid 

acceptance period expired should it decide that it no longer wanted the award, for 

example, because of unanticipated cost increases, market fluctuations, shortages, 

or better profit opportunities elsewhere. See Banknote Corp. of Am., supra, at 3. 

GAI argues that the Army should have requested that the protester revive its 

proposal, after the proposal expired on February 1. The protester contends there 

would have been no prejudice to the competitive system by allowing it to revive its 

proposal because the agency requested that GFS extend its proposal acceptance 

date several times after February 29. As discussed above, however, the protester 

advised the agency that it would not extend its price beyond February 1, as 

requested, and also advised that the protester “reserved the right” to modify its 

proposal after that date. AR, Tab 24a, GAI Response to Extension Request (Jan. 

19, 2012). Because GAI expressly refused to extend its proposal, the Army 

properly excluded its proposal from award consideration. In contrast, the agency 

reasonably requested that the remaining offeror, whose proposal was still valid, 

extend its proposal acceptance period on the same terms. On this record, we 

conclude that GAI’s proposal expired, and the Army could not permit the protester 

to revive its proposal because, for the reasons stated above, such a revival and 

proposal extension would compromise the integrity of the competitive bidding 

system. See Esprit Int’l Corp., B-276294, Mar. 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 106 at 2.

Additionally, GAI argues that the award notice and debriefing set forth different 

reasons for its elimination from the competition--reasons that the agency does not 

now defend. In effect, the protester argues that the agency is now estopped from 

arguing that its proposal had expired.

As discussed above, however, it is clear that GAI’s proposal had expired and could 

not be revived without compromising the competitive bidding system and it therefore

was no longer eligible for award. See Esprit Int’l Corp., supra. Thus, even if, as the 

protester contends, the agency did not reach this conclusion until after its 
Page 5 B-406828 

agency-level protest was filed, we see no basis to conclude on the record here that 

the protester’s proposal could be considered for award.

The protest is denied.2

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 2 GAI also raises other collateral issues, none of which has merit. For example, the 

protester argues that the debriefing set forth reasons for rejection that the agency 

concedes were not correct. This situation does not, however, provide a basis to 

sustain the protest. Debriefings are procedural matters that do not affect the validity 

of the award. Healthcare Tech. Solutions Int'l, B-299781, July 19, 2007, 2007 CPD 

¶ 132 at 5.