Skip to main content

[Protest of Army Cancellation of RFP for Support Center Operation]

B-219580 Published: Sep 27, 1985. Publicly Released: Sep 27, 1985.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested the Army's cancellation of a solicitation for the operation of a training and audio-visual support center, contending that: (1) the cost comparison which determined whether it would be more economical to contract out for the services or to have the services performed in-house was inaccurate, misleading, and inconsistent with OMB Circular A-76 policy and procedures; (2) the eight positions which the Army retained as full-time government positions were excessive; (3) the presence of an excessive residual staff permitted the Army to make sizable personnel reductions in its in-house staff; (4) the Army did not have adequate staffing to accomplish certain areas of work; and (5) the Army improperly failed to adjust the cost comparison for certain travel costs involving the use of a government vehicle. GAO noted that a protester must demonstrate that the agency failed to follow established procedures for the in-house/out-house cost comparison and that this failure could have materially affected the outcome of the cost comparison. The Army argued that: (1) the determination of the number of residual staff and total employees needed was a management decision which was not subject to administrative appeal; (2) the residual staffing level would not perform any work included in the performance work statement (PWS); and (3) the number of employees assigned to accomplish the PWS was adequate. GAO found that: (1) an agency should be free to make its own management decisions on staffing levels as long as the subsequent cost comparison is done in accordance with established procedures; (2) the Army conducted the required management study and determined, in its best judgment, the staffing levels required; (3) the protester's disagreement with the results of the study did not demonstrate fraud or bad faith on the agency's part; (3) the protester did not present any evidence to rebut the Army's contention that its residual staff will not perform any PWS tasks; and (4) since the difference between the Army's and the protester's total figures was greater than the alleged errors in the government's estimate of travel costs, the errors did not affect the evaluation result. Accordingly, the protest was denied.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Army procurementCost analysisLabor forcePersonnel managementPrivatizationService contractsSolicitation cancellationWork measurementU.S. ArmyHuman resources managementBid evaluation protestsStaffing levelsTravel costsProtestsComputer incident response capabilityBreach of contractSolicitations