[Protest of Army Decision To Continue In-House Support Services]

A firm protested the Army's decision to use its own employees to continue support services at an Army facility rather than to contract for the services. The protester contended that: (1) the Army's in-house cost estimate was not based on the scope of work set forth in the solicitation; (2) certain line items in the cost comparison were not computed using current revisions to regulations; and (3) the Army's appeal board by its composition could not objectively review its complaints. GAO held that: (1) although the solicitation provided offerers with an ambiguous description of the required work, the protester did not provide any evidence showing that the Army's cost comparison was materially affected by the deficiency; (2) the activity conducting the comparison had received a waiver from using the current revisions; and (3) the solicitation did not set forth criteria for the establishment or composition of the appeal board. Accordingly, the protest was denied.