This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-177R 
entitled 'GAO Bid Protest Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal 
Year 2001' which was released on January 9, 2002.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, 
as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' 
accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural 
and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility 
features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered 
footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency 
comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the 
presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document 
format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed 
version. 

We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the 
contents or accessibility features of this document to 
webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

GAO-02-177R: 

B-158766: 

January 9, 2002: 

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert: 
Speaker of the House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Speaker: 

This letter responds to the requirements of the Competition in 
Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C.  3554(e) (Supp. IV 1998), that the 
Comptroller General report to the Congress each instance in which a 
federal agency did not fully implement a recommendation made by our 
Office in connection with a bid protest decided the prior fiscal year. 
Although there were no such occurrences with respect to our fiscal 
year 2001 recommendations, we are reporting an instance related to a 
fiscal year 2000 decision, where it only became apparent in fiscal 
year 2001 that the agency was not promptly implementing our 
recommendation.

In Aberdeen Tech. Servs., Inc., B-283727.2, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD  
46, we considered a challenge to the Department of the Army's 
decision, reached after a cost comparison pursuant to Office of 
Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, that it would be more 
economical to manage and operate base industrial operations in-house 
at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, rather than contract for the 
services with Aberdeen Technical Services (ATS), which had submitted 
the best private-sector proposal in the competition that preceded the 
comparison. We sustained ATS's protest on several grounds. We 
recommended that the Army correct errors that we found in the agency's 
calculation of the costs of in-house and contractor performance, as 
well as in the public/private cost comparison. Alternatively, we 
recommended that the Army revise the RFP, reopen discussions, and 
conduct a new cost comparison.

The Army did not implement our February 2000 recommendation, but 
advised our Office that, while it still plans to resolicit, there will 
be additional delays in doing so because of changes in the Army's 
requirements, requiring that the original solicitation be canceled. 
The Army estimates that a new solicitation will be issued in early 
2002, some 2 years after issuance of our decision and recommendation. 
On June 19 2001, we advised the relevant congressional committees 
that, in our view, this lengthy delay constituted a failure to 
implement our recommendation. See 31 U.S.C.  3554(e)(1) (1994 and 
Supp. IV 1998).

By decision of August 22, we modified our recommendation, at ATS's 
request and without objection from the Army, to allow the firm to be 
reimbursed the costs of preparing its proposal. Aberdeen Tech. Servs.-
Modification of Recommendation, B-283727.3, Aug. 22, 2001, 2001 CPD  
___. ATS has submitted a claim to the Army detailing the time expended 
and costs incurred in preparing its proposal; the claim currently is 
under consideration by that agency.

During the fiscal year, we received 1,084 protests (including 32 cost 
claims) and 62 requests for reconsideration, for a total of 1,146 
cases. We closed 1,098 cases: 1,040 protests (including 33 cost 
claims) and 58 requests for reconsideration. Enclosed for your 
information are statistics concerning suspensions of contract awards 
and performance as a result of bid protests.

A copy of this report, with the enclosure, is being furnished to the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on 
Government Reform. A similar report is being furnished to the 
President of the Senate. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Anthony H. Gamboa: 
General Counsel: 

Enclosure: 

Suspension of Award/Performance Data: 

Background: 

CICA contains several provisions whose purpose is to enhance the 
likelihood that protests can be decided before contract performance 
reaches a stage at which corrective action is effectively precluded. 
Where an agency is notified of a protest before award, CICA precludes 
an award unless the head of the procuring activity makes certain 
findings justifying the award. In cases where notice is received 
within 10 days following the date of award or within 5 days after a 
required debriefing, CICA requires the suspension of performance 
unless the head of the procuring activity makes certain other findings 
justifying the continuance of performance despite the protest. 

Data: 

The following tables present data regarding the number of contracts 
awarded after a protest was filed (table A), the number of protests in 
table A in which GAO sustained the protest (table B), the number of 
contracts in which performance was not suspended following a protest 
(table C), and the number of cases sustained by GAO in which 
performance was not suspended (table D). 

Table A: Protests Filed Before Award- Contracts Awarded After Protest 
Filing: 

Defense Agencies: 9; 
Civilian Agencies: 10. 

[End of table] 

Table B: Protests Filed Before Award- Protests Sustained Where 
Contracts Awarded After Protest Filing: 

Defense Agencies: 0; 
Civilian Agencies: 1. 

[End of table] 

Table C: Protests Filed After Award- Contracts in Which Performance 
Was Continued: 

Where agency determined that urgency justified continued performance: 
Defense Agencies: 11; 
Civilian Agencies: 23. 
	
Where agency found that continued performance was in Government's best 
interest: 
Defense Agencies: 8; 
Civilian Agencies: 34. 

[End of table] 
		
Table D: Protests Filed After Award- Protests Sustained Where 
Performance Was Continued: 

Where agency determined that urgency justified continued performance: 	
Defense Agencies: 0; 
Civilian Agencies: 4. 
	
Where agency found that	continued performance was in Government's best 
interest: 
Defense Agencies: 3; 
Civilian Agencies: 9. 

[End of table] 

[End of enclosure] 

[End of report]