B-195550.3, L/M APR 6, 1981

B-195550.3, L/M APR 6, 1981

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

EMILEY, MURPHY, OLSON & CILMAN, COUNSEL FOR DISTRICT 7, MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION - AMO, AFL-CIO:

ATTENTION: JOS, DINSMORE MURPHY, ESQ.

WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 10, 1981, PROTESTING THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND, TO EXERCISE AN OPTION UNDER CONTRACT NO. N0033-75-C-T006 WITH MARINE TRANSPORT LINES (MTL) FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF NINE OIL TANKERS. YOU ALSO CONTEND THAT THE NAVY HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT OF 1966, 41 U.S.C. SECS. 351 ET SEQ. (1976), WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIAL CONTRACT WITH MTL AND IN SUBSEQUENT PROCUREMENT ACTIONS.

IN OUR DECISION MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION; SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, B-195550, DECEMBER 5, 1980, 60 COMP.GEN. 102, 80-2 CPD 419, WE DISMISSED A PROTEST FILED BY YOUR ORGANIZATION AND THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ON ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MATTERS. (THE OPTION IN ISSUE THERE WAS THE FIRST OF A SERIES IN THE NAVY-MTL CONTRACT; THE ONE IN ISSUE HERE IS THE SECOND.) FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE HELD THAT THE UNIONS WERE NOT INTERESTED PARTIES FOR PURPOSES OF PROTESTING THE NAVY'S DECISION TO EXERCISE THE OPTION. IN SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMING THAT DECISION IN MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION; SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, B-195550.2, MARCH 23, 1981, 81-1 CPD . WE ALSO SPECIFICALLY ADVISED THAT THE ENFORECEMENT OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT OF 1965 IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NOT OUR OFFICE.

IN VIEW THEREOF, WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE PROTEST.

DIGEST 1

LABOR UNION PROTESTING EXERCISE OF CONTRACT OPTION BECAUSE FIRMS THAT MIGHT COMPETE IF SOLICITATION WERE ISSUED EMPLOY PERSONS WHO ARE OR MIGHT BECOME AFFILIATED WITH UNIONS IS NOT "INTERESTED" PARTY UNDER GAO BID PROTEST PROCEDURES.

DIGEST 2

ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE CONTRACT ACT OF 1965 IS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NOT GAO.