B-174309, FEB 8, 1972

B-174309: Feb 8, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THE DETERMINATION THAT THE COST OF DPM WAS NO LONGER COMPETITIVE WITH THAT OF TGBL WAS MADE BY DEFENSE OFFICIALS AND THE PROTEST MUST BE DENIED SINCE THE COMP. TO CAKE & STERENBUCH: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 22. THE DECISION TO VIRTUALLY EXCLUSIVELY UTILIZE THE TGBL METHOD TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE DPM WAS MADE SINCE "THE COST OF DPM HAD INCREASED TO THE DEGREE THAT IT WAS GENERALLY NOT COST COMPETITIVE WITH THE ITGBL METHOD.". SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE DISTRICT CONTRACT IS THE FURNISHING OF THE DESIRED SERVICES AND MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROVIDED INCIDENT TO COMPLETE MOVEMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEN PURCHASED BY THE TGBL METHOD.

B-174309, FEB 8, 1972

CONTRACTS - METHOD OF PAYMENT DECISION DENYING THE PROTEST OF DISTRICT MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., AGAINST THE ELIMINATION OF THE DIRECT PROCUREMENT METHOD (DPM) AND THE RESULTANT USE OF THE THROUGH GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING (TGBL) METHOD FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS BY THE MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL SERVICE (MTMTS). THE DETERMINATION THAT THE COST OF DPM WAS NO LONGER COMPETITIVE WITH THAT OF TGBL WAS MADE BY DEFENSE OFFICIALS AND THE PROTEST MUST BE DENIED SINCE THE COMP. GEN. HAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTION TO THE ACTION.

TO CAKE & STERENBUCH:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 22, 1971, ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT MOVING & STORAGE, INC. (DISTRICT), PROTESTING AGAINST THE ELIMINATION OF THE DIRECT PROCUREMENT METHOD (DPM) AND THE RESULTANT ALMOST EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE THROUGH GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING (TGBL) METHOD FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS BY THE MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL SERVICE (MTMTS).

THE PRINCIPAL BASIS OF YOUR PROTEST CONCERNS THE FACT THAT "THE ACTION TAKEN BY MTMTS DRASTICALLY REDUCES THE TONNAGE BEING TENDERED TO DISTRICT MOVING AND STORAGE UNDER A CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE CONTRACT WITH THE JOINT HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C." THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT DISTRICT HAD SUCH A CONTRACT OF THE REQUIREMENTS TYPE TO RENDER SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PACKING AND CRATING OF OUTBOUND HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1971.

WE ENCLOSE FOR YOUR INFORMATION COPIES OF PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REPORT ON YOUR PROTEST TO OUR OFFICE. SUMMARIZING THE REPORT, THE DECISION TO VIRTUALLY EXCLUSIVELY UTILIZE THE TGBL METHOD TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE DPM WAS MADE SINCE "THE COST OF DPM HAD INCREASED TO THE DEGREE THAT IT WAS GENERALLY NOT COST COMPETITIVE WITH THE ITGBL METHOD." THIS DECISION CONSTITUTED A POLICY MANAGERIAL DETERMINATION BY THE COGNIZANT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING SUCH DECISIONS; CONSEQUENTLY, OUR OFFICE HAS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH TO OBJECT TO THE MTMTS ACTION.

IN ANY EVENT, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE DISTRICT CONTRACT IS THE FURNISHING OF THE DESIRED SERVICES AND MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROVIDED INCIDENT TO COMPLETE MOVEMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEN PURCHASED BY THE TGBL METHOD. ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST DENY THE PROTEST OF DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, WE WISH TO POINT OUT THAT OUR DENIAL OF THE PROTEST SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EITHER SANCTIONING OR DISAPPROVING THE ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN THIS MATTER.