This is the accessible text file for GAO report entitled 'GAO Bid 
Protest Annual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 1998' which was 
released on January 29, 1999.

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. 

Comptroller General of the United States: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

B-158766: 

January 29, 1999: 

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. II 1996), 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. 
There was one such occurrence during fiscal year 1998. 

In Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., B-280397, Sept. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD  79, we 
considered a challenge to an Air Force solicitation that bundled 
together into one procurement a significant portion of the workload 
currently performed by the Sacramento Air Logistics Center, which the 
Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended be closed by July 
2001. We sustained the protest because we concluded that the Air Force 
had failed to show that combining this workload into a single 
solicitation was reasonably required to satisfy the agency's needs. We
recommended that the Air Force cancel the solicitation and resolicit its
requirements without bundling these workloads. 

The Air Force decided to proceed with contract award under the 
solicitation despite our decision. The Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology has advised the Congress that the Air Force 
decision was driven by a conclusion that implementation of our 
decision's recommendations would harm Air Force readiness. In an 
argument that had been considered and rejected by our Office as 
insufficient, the Air Force stated that the risk to readiness of 
unbundling the KC-135 portion of the Sacramento workload was 
unacceptable. 

In response to the Air Force refusal to follow the recommendation in 
our decision, Pemco Aeroplex filed a lawsuit in the United States 
District Court, Northern District of Alabama. That lawsuit, Pemco 
Aeroplex, Inc. v. Cohen (Civ. Action No. CV-98-J-2584-S), seeks a 
ruling that the Air Force solicitation, and subsequent action, are
improper. The case is pending before the court. 

Our Office has conducted a comprehensive review of this procurement. 
Public-Private Competitions: Processes Used for Sacramento Depot 
Maintenance Award Appear Reasonable (GAO/NSIAD-99-42, Nov. 23, 1998). 
We make no recommendation for further congressional action pursuant to 
31 U.S.C.  3554(e)(1)(B) at this time. 

Regarding the rest of the bid protest activity during the fiscal year, 
we received 1,427 protests (including 29 cost claims) and 139 requests 
for reconsideration for a total of 1,566 cases. We closed 1,600 cases: 
1,467 protests (including 29 cost claims) and 133 requests for 
reconsideration. Enclosed for your information are some 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 
House Committees on Government Reform and Appropriations. An identical 
report is being furnished to the President of the Senate. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Robert P. Murphy, for: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 

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: 8; 
Civilian Agencies: 11. 

[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: 23; 
Civilian Agencies: 16. 
	
Where agency found that continued performance was in Government's best 
interest: 
Defense Agencies: 22; 
Civilian Agencies: 23. 

[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: 1; 
Civilian Agencies: 2. 
	
Where agency found that	continued performance was in Government's best 
interest: 
Defense Agencies: 3; 
Civilian Agencies: 4. 

[End of table] 

[End of enclosure] 

[End of report]