[Protest of Air Force Quality Assurance Provisions]
Highlights
A firm protested two Air Force solicitations for custodial services, contending that quality assurance provisions in both solicitations imposed unwarranted penalties on the contractor during performance and that in the second solicitation, a small business set-aside, the negotiation authority was improperly cited. GAO has sustained two protests on the issues of penalties based on random inspections and the grouping of tasks for the purposes of deductions, and it has made recommendations to the Air Force on administration of these provisions. Since the Air Force has taken action to implement the recommendations, GAO did not address this particular aspect of the protest. The protester also complained that the Air Force could deduct liquidated damages for failure to reperform satisfactorily after the evaluator verified customer complaints. GAO stated that Air Force regulations recognize the necessity of using formal customer complaints for inspection purposes and that the solicitation kept the complaint deductions and random samplings separate and distinct. Moreover, GAO stated that Air Force regulations instructing government contracting personnel in connection with a statement of work and quality assurance plan and do not create any rights for potential offerers. GAO concluded that the protester did not submit evidence that the deduction provision imposed an unreasonable measure of damages. Regarding the second ground of protest, GAO stated that the cited negotiation authority was required to limit the competition to small business concerns. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.