Protest of Air Force Determination Not To Contract Support Services
Highlights
A firm protested the Air Force determination to provide operating support services at an Air Force facility by continuing performance by Government personnel rather than by contracting with the protester. In reaching this determination, the Air Force had issued a request for proposals (RFP) to determine the costs of contracting for the services and prepared an in-house estimate by a management engineering team to determine the cost of Government personnel performance. The protester contended that: (1) the Air Force compromised the integrity of the competitive procurement system by failing to follow an Air Force requirement to complete and seal the Government's estimate prior to the date of receipt of initial proposals under the RFP; (2) the Air Force used ideas and manning structures that the protester proposed in making the in-house estimate; (3) the cost comparison was faulty in regards to personnel costs and new equipment costs; and (4) it should have been awarded the contract or proposal preparation costs. In response, the Air Force denied any improprieties in the process it followed. Additionally, the Air Force denied that it used the protester's ideas in preparing the in-house estimate or that the cost comparison was faulty. Regarding the new equipment contention, the Air Force contended that this grounds for protest was untimely filed by the protester. GAO considered the protest because the Air Force utilized the procurement system to reach a determination of whether to contract out, by spelling out in a solicitation the circumstances under which a contract would be awarded. GAO held that the Air Force procedures in question were unclear and recommended that they be clarified. In view of the fact that the Air Force denied the protester's contention that it used the firm's proposal to make its estimate and the protester's failure to produce clear and convincing evidence to support its position, this aspect of the protest was denied. No basis was found to conclude that the Air Force's position on incumbent personnel expenses was unreasonable. On the timeliness factor, the Air Force was correct and GAO did not consider this portion of the protest. In conclusion, since the protester was not subject to arbitrary treatment, improperly induced to submit a proposal where no contract was contemplated, or denied a contract which it would have received, GAO held it was not entitled to proposal preparation costs. Accordingly, the protest was denied.