Posted

Too Little, Too Late: Court of Federal Claims Enforces Hard Line on Late Proposal Submissions

by

In Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1773 (August 28, 2025), Competitive Innovations (CI) challenged the Transportation Security Administration’s decision to reject its revised proposal in a procurement for program management support services. TSA had disqualified CI for submitting a modification to its labor category mapping after the proposal deadline, and for relying on a GSA schedule modification that was not yet effective when its proposal was due. CI argued the agency’s actions were overly rigid and unfair, and that it should have been granted an extension. The Court disagreed, upholding the rejection and reiterating that when it comes to proposal deadlines in Federal procurements, late is late.

The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, ruling that:

  1. The Late Submission Was Disqualifying, As No Exceptions Applied: CI submitted a revised proposal at 12:48 p.m., nearly three hours after the 10 a.m. deadline. The proposal included a critical GSA labor category mapping that TSA had repeatedly flagged as noncompliant. While CI insisted the modification should count since GSA had approved it on the same day, the Court noted that the FAR’s “late is late” rule (FAR 52.212-1(f)) applied and that no exceptions justified acceptance.
  2. GSA Schedule Modifications Must Be Effective at the Time of Submission: CI attempted to rely on a GSA schedule modification that was approved on the same day proposals were due but admitted that the approval came after the 10 a.m. submission deadline. The Court held that TSA was not required to accept services that were not yet on contract at the time of submission, emphasizing that under both FAR and established precedent, only services listed on an offeror’s MAS contract at the submission deadline are eligible for award.
  3. Agency Was Not Required to Extend the Deadline: CI requested a short extension, claiming GSA was close to finalizing the contract update. TSA denied the request. The Court upheld the agency’s decision, emphasizing that agencies have wide discretion in managing procurement timelines especially when the protester had ample opportunity to resolve the issue earlier but failed to act promptly.
  4. The Proposal Was Properly Disqualified for Noncompliance: Even aside from the timing issue, the agency concluded that CI’s original proposal failed to clearly map its labor category to the required position. Because the relevant labor description lacked specific acquisition-related experience, and because CI didn’t fix it in time, the disqualification was upheld as both reasonable and consistent with the solicitation requirements.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. “Late Is Late” Still Rules the Day: FAR 52.212-1(f) is unforgiving. Proposals and modifications must be received by the exact deadline. No exceptions apply for last-minute GSA approvals or technical complications.
  2. Contractor Readiness Is Non-Negotiable: If you know your proposal depends on a GSA schedule update, don’t wait until the last minute to seek the modification. CI had weeks of notice and still missed the deadline.
  3. Discretion Cuts Both Ways: Agencies are free to grant or deny extension requests, and the Court won’t second-guess that discretion unless it’s clearly irrational. Here, TSA acted within its rights.
  4. Mapping Labor Categories Is Not Just a Formality: Offerors must ensure their labor categories explicitly match the government’s stated requirements. If your mapping is vague or incomplete, you risk elimination.
  5. This Case Is a Textbook Example: Competitive Innovations is a reminder that deadline discipline and compliance precision are essential. Protesters won’t get sympathy (or relief) if they miss deadlines or gloss over key instructions.