BNUMBER:  B-272764
DATE:  August 23, 1996
TITLE:  Ivey Mechanical Company

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Ivey Mechanical Company

File:     B-272764

Date:August 23, 1996

Andrew J. Kilpatrick, Jr., Esq., Hickman, Sumners, Goza & Gore, for 
the protester.
Maj. Stephen L. Devita, Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where only one proposal had been timely submitted as of the original 
closing date for the submission of proposals, it was not improper to 
extend the closing date in the interest of obtaining competition by 
permitting an offeror who submitted a late proposal to compete.

DECISION

Ivey Mechanical Company protests the Department of the Air Force's 
amendment of  request for proposals (RFP) No. F40650-96-R-0004 so as 
to extend the closing date for the submission of proposals.  The 
amendment was issued after only Ivey's proposal was received by the 
original closing date.  Another proposal had been submitted, but was 
rejected as late.  The contracting officer determined that the closing 
date should be extended in the interest of obtaining competition.[1]  
Ivey argues there was no reason to permit the extension since the 
other offeror had ample time to submit its proposal and should not be 
given a second chance.  The Air Force has requested that we dismiss 
the protest for failing to state legally sufficient grounds for 
protest.

We dismiss the protest.

Ivey attempts to distinguish several cases cited by the Air Force in 
support of its motion to dismiss.  There is no reason to discuss those 
cases at length.  Regardless of the specific circumstances of those 
cases, we have repeatedly approved of the issuance of amendments 
extending closing dates after the expiration of the original closing 
date when the result is enhanced competition.  See Institute for 
Advanced Safety Studies--Recon., B-221330.2, July 25, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  
110 (not improper to issue an amendment extending the closing date 3 
days after the expiration of the original closing date); Fort Biscuit 
Co., 71 Comp. Gen. 392 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  440 (not improper to issue 
an extension of the closing date for the submission of best and final 
offerors after that date so as to permit one of four offerors more 
time to submit its best and final offer); Varicon Int'l, Inc.; MVM, 
Inc., B-255808; B-255808.2, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  240 (not improper 
to extend the closing date after expiration of the original date so as 
to enhance competition by permitting two offerors submitting late 
proposals to compete against the two offerors that submitted timely 
proposals).[2]  Further, while we will examine an agency's refusal to 
grant an extension to determine if it was arbitrary or capricious, we 
will not object to an extension when its primary purpose is to 
increase competition.  Solar Resources Inc., B-193264, Feb. 9, 1979, 
79-1 CPD  para.  95.

The protest is dismissed.[3]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The Air Force reports that the contents of Ivey's proposal, 
including its prices, have not been disclosed.  

2. While Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  15.410 (FAC 90-39) 
contemplates that solicitation amendments ordinarily will be issued 
prior to the closing date, it does not prohibit the issuance of 
amendments extending the closing date after the closing date. See 
Institute for Advanced Safety Studies--Recon., supra.

3. In view of our conclusion, we see no reason to hold a conference as 
Ivey has requested.