United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Impact Resource Technologies 

File: B-407259.2

Date: December 4, 2012

David J. Seidman, Esq., Seidman & Associates, P.C., for the protester.

Lisa L. Baker, Esq., United States Marine Corps, for the agency.

Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of agency’s time extension for the receipt of quotations following a

solicitation amendment is denied where the protester has not shown the extension 

to be unreasonable.

DECISION

Impact Resource Technologies (“IR Tech”), of Bethesda, Maryland, protests the 

terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. M67854-12-Q-4910, issued by the United 

States Marine Corps, for information technology-related services. IR Tech argues 

that the agency’s extension for the receipt of quotations following an RFQ 

amendment was inadequate.

We deny the protest.

The agency issued the RFQ on August 1, 2012, seeking quotations from vendors 

holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) “IT-70” 

contracts. RFQ at 1, 47; Agency Report (AR) at 2. The selected vendor would 

operate, maintain, and enhance the Marine Corps recruiting information support 

system (MCRISS).1

 1 The objective of the MCRISS is to operate, maintain, enhance, and streamline the 

Marine Corps’ recruiting scheduling process. RFQ at 43.

 RFQ at 47; Statement of Objectives (SOO) at 3. The RFQ 

contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order with an 8-month base period 

of performance and three 12-month option periods. RFQ at 44, 47. 
Page 2 B-407259.2 

The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated on a best value basis, 

considering the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: 

technical approach, management approach, past performance, and cost/price. Id.

at 55. The RFQ also required that vendors include in their quotations a “copy of the 

Offeror’s [Capability Maturity Model Integration] CMMI Appraisal Disclosure 

Statement (ADS) confirming the Level III certification of the Offeror’s organization 

performing the MCRISS work.” Id. at 50. According to the protester, CMMI is a 

model that an organization can follow to increase its performance or improve a 

process. Protest, October 30, 2012, at 2. 

IR Tech--which does not possess a CMMI Level III ADS--filed a protest with our 

Office on August 30, 2012, objecting to the RFQ’s CMMI Level III ADS requirement. 

Id. at 4. Specifically, IR Tech argued that the CMMI requirement was unduly 

restrictive of competition and that the RFQ did not actually require the awardee to 

perform in accordance with CMMI Level III requirements. Id. at 4. IR Tech also 

complained that the requirement was ambiguous because the RFQ did not specify 

which CMMI model (of three options) was applicable. Id. at 5.

In response to IR Tech’s protest, the agency took corrective action by amending the 

RFQ. In this respect, on August 31--the day after IR Tech’s protest was filed--the 

agency amended the RFQ’s CMMI Level IIII ADS requirement to allow a vendor to 

describe how their proposed processes were equivalent to the CMMI Level III 

processes (instead of actually holding the certification). RFQ amend. 2, at 9. The 

RFQ amendment also clarified and updated other provisions related to the CMMI 

Level III ADS requirement. See RFQ amend. 2, at 10, 16. As relevant here, the 

agency extended the deadline for the submission of quotations until 9:00 a.m. on 

September 7. RFQ amend. 2, at 6. Because the agency’s corrective action 

rendered IR Tech’s August 30 protest academic, we dismissed the protest. See

Info. Res. Techs., B-407259, Sept. 4, 2012.

On September 6, IR Tech filed this protest with our Office, arguing that the agency 

did not provide sufficient additional time for IR Tech to submit a quotation. IR Tech 

contends that the short response time is unduly restrictive of competition, unfair, 

and violates the requirement of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 5.203(b) 

that agencies allow contactors a reasonable time to prepare quotations. 

As an initial matter, we do not see, and the protester has not explained, how the 

synopses requirements of FAR subpart 5.2 apply to a procurement conducted as an 

FSS buy. In this regard, FAR § 8.404(a) expressly states that ordering activities 

need not synopsize requirements since the requirements for full and open 

competition are considered to have been met. FAR § 8.404(a); see Warden

Assocs., Inc., B-291440, B-291440.2, Dec. 27, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 223 at 2-3. As 

we have previously stated, FAR subpart 8.4 does not require that vendors be 

permitted a specific minimum amount of time to respond to an RFQ; what is 
Page 3 B-407259.2 

reasonable and sufficient depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Warden Assocs., Inc., supra.

Here, the RFQ was initially issued on August 1 and amended on August 31, in 

response to IR Tech’s initial protest. That amendment made no significant changes 

to the MCRISS requirements, except to modify the CMMI requirement, and 

permitted vendors 7 additional days to submit a quotation.2 The protester claims 

that responding to the RFQ is a “substantial undertaking” that requires at least 

30 days. Comments at 4-5. However, the total response time provided here was 

37 days. That the protester chose not to put any effort into preparing a quotation 

until the agency amended the solicitation to revise the CMMI requirement does not 

compel the conclusion that additional time is required or that the agency’s time 

extension was unreasonable. See Warden Assocs., Inc., supra (finding that 3 days 

to respond to RFQ was reasonable). Moreover, the agency received four other 

responsive quotations prior to the RFQ’s deadline, thus showing that competition 

was not unduly restricted. See AR at 3. Under the circumstances, we find that the 

time set for responding to the RFQ amendment was reasonable, not unfair or 

unduly restrictive of competition, and in accordance with the FAR.3 

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 2 IR Tech complains that it was only permitted 3 days to respond to the RFQ 

amendment because it did not actually receive notice of the agency’s corrective 

action until September 4. The RFQ amendment here was posted to the e-Buy 

portal. This portal is specifically designated in FAR subpart 8.4 as GSA’s electronic 

RFQ system where ordering activities post requirements. FAR § 8.402(d). IR Tech 

has offered no explanation why it did not check the e-Buy portal for amendments. 

3 We have reviewed the protester’s allegation that the solicitation amendment 

evidences inadequate market research, and other related arguments, and find no 

merit to these assertions.