United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: CFS-INC, JV 

File: B-401809.2 

Date: March 31, 2010 

Terrence M. O’Connor, Esq., Seth C. Berenzweig, Esq., and Stephanie D. Wilson, 

Esq., Albo & Oblon, LLP, for the protester. 

Jackson T. Reams, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. 

Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST 

Where severe snowstorms closed the government in Washington D.C. on a day when 

proposals were scheduled to be received, the agency reasonably received proposals 

on the next day that the Government was open and resumed its normal processes, as 

authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation § 52.212-1(f)(4) (Instructions to 

Offerors--Commercial Items (June 2008); the fact that a delayed arrival/unscheduled 

leave policy for government employees was authorized for that day did not mean 

normal government processes had not resumed. 

DECISION 

CFS-INC, JV (CFS) protests the rejection of its proposal as late under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. GS-11P-09-ZGC-0022 by the General Services Administration 

(GSA), for commercial facilities management services. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP originally provided for proposals to be submitted in response to the 

solicitation on September 3, 2009. The solicitation contained the following 

provision: 

NOTE: Per the Federal Acquisition Regulation, if an emergency or 

unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that 

proposals cannot be received at the Government office designated for 

receipt of proposals by the exact time specified in the solicitation, and 

urgent Government requirements preclude amendment of the 
solicitation closing date, the time specified for receipt of proposals will 

be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the 

solicitation on the first work day on which normal Government 

processes resume. 

RFP at 8. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.212-1(f)(4), Instructions to 

Offerors--Commercial Items (June 2008), which is identical to the above-quoted 

language as well as to FAR § 15.208(d), was also incorporated into the RFP. RFP 

at 19. 

The agency issued amendment No. 10 to the RFP on January 27, 2010, which 

extended the proposal due date until February 9 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

Amendment No 12, issued on January 29, affirmed that the proposal due date was 

February 9 at 2:00 p.m.. Proposals were to be submitted to GSA’s Triangle Service 

Center, 409 12th Street, SW, Room 710, Washington, D.C. 20024. RFP amend. 2. 

Due to major winter storms in the Washington D.C. area on February 5 and 6 and 

again on February 9 and 10, federal agencies in the Washington D.C. area were 

closed from Monday, February 8 through Thursday, February 11. On February 9, 

several offerors, including CFS, attempted to hand deliver their proposals to the 

Triangle Service Center in Washington, D.C., but could not because the agency was 

closed. On Friday, February 12, federal agencies in Washington D.C. reopened, but 

Federal employees were allowed to arrive for work up to 2 hours later than they 

would normally arrive, and employees who could not report for work were allowed 

to take unscheduled leave. OPM Federal Government Archived Operating Status in 

the Washington, D.C. Area (Feb. 11, 2010).1 

On February 12, when GSA reopened, the contracting officer determined that under 

FAR § 52.212-1(f)(4)--the provision included in the RFP--the due date for receipt of 

proposals was extended from February 9 at 2 p.m. to February 12, at 2 p.m., “because 

GSA was open for business and ready to accept bids well before 2 p.m. on February 

12, 2010.” Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. Multiple proposals were submitted 

by the February 12 closing time. The protester submitted its proposal on February 

12, at 2:24 p.m, and it was rejected as late. This protest followed. 

CFS contends that the due date for proposals should have been extended until 2 p.m. 

on Tuesday, February 16, because this was the first day that normal government 

processes resumed.2

 Therefore, the protester argues that the contracting officer 

determination to reject CFS’s proposal as late was in error. The protester essentially 

contends that “normal government processes” could not be said to have resumed on 

 

1

 http://www.opm.gov/status/pastStatus.aspx?q=275. 

2

 Monday, February 15, was a federal holiday. 

Page 2 B-401809.2 
Page 3 B-401809.2 

 

a day when the federal agency was operating under a 2-hour delayed 

arrival/unscheduled leave policy. 

We agree with the agency that normal Government processes resumed on 

February 12. The agency states it “went on with the pursuit of its normal business 

following a morning that permitted Federal employees some additional time to safely 

commute to work” and was able to accept proposals at 2 p.m. Agency Report at 6. 

Contrary to the protester’s allegations, the fact that Federal employees were allowed 

to delay arrival or take unscheduled leave does not mean that the Government had 

not resumed its normal processes. In fact, procedures of the Office of Personnel 

Management recognize that situations that allow for delayed arrival or unscheduled 

leave are different from the situations where the “Federal agencies are closed.” OPM 

Washington, D.C. Area Dismissal or Closure Procedures (Nov. 2009) at 11.3

We therefore find that the agency reasonably rejected CFS’s proposal as late because 

it was received after 2 p.m. on “the first work day on which normal Government 

processes resume[d].” 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

 

3

 https://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/dismissal.pdf.