B-244629, Jul 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***

B-244629: Jul 18, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

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

PROCUREMENT - Special Procurement Methods/Categories - In-house performance - Administrative discretion - GAO review DIGEST: Decision to perform services in-house is a matter of executive branch policy. The protester contends that the estimated cost of performance in-house is too low and that the agency should "withdraw its bid" and award a contract to the low. Was incomplete and. The protester advises our Office that the solicitation was not a cost comparison conducted in accordance with Office and Management Budget (OMB) Circular No. 600 was allegedly the lowest. Even if we assume that the facts are as the protester states them. The protest is dismissed.

B-244629, Jul 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Special Procurement Methods/Categories - In-house performance - Administrative discretion - GAO review DIGEST: Decision to perform services in-house is a matter of executive branch policy, and agency need not conduct a cost comparison under Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 to make such a decision.

Attorneys

Contract Automotive Repair & Management:

Contract Automotive Repair & Management protests the rejection of its bid and the cancellation of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DACW45-91 B-0049, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which decided to perform the work in-house. The protester contends that the estimated cost of performance in-house is too low and that the agency should "withdraw its bid" and award a contract to the low, responsive bidder.

The agency opened bids on June 12, 1991, for a contract for operation and repair of its automotive fleet in the Omaha District for a period of 54 months. The protester learned that the low bid, $4,124,707 from the General Services Administration (GSA), was incomplete and, on June 18, filed an agency-level protest against acceptance of the GSA bid; subsequently, the agency notified the protester that it had decided to perform the work in-house at an estimated cost of $2,722,922. This protest followed.

The protester advises our Office that the solicitation was not a cost comparison conducted in accordance with Office and Management Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76. The protester argues that the agency has estimated the cost of in-house performance too low and that the agency should withdraw its bid and award a contract to the protester, whose bid of $4,678,600 was allegedly the lowest, responsive bid received.

An agency may properly cancel a solicitation when it concludes that it can perform the services more economically in-house. The agency need not base the decision to cancel a solicitation upon the results of an A-76 cost comparison in such circumstances. Creative Resources, Inc., B-225950, Feb. 11, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 153. Thus, even if we assume that the facts are as the protester states them, the protester does not state a valid basis for protest. See 56 Fed.Reg. 3,759 (1991) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)).

The protest is dismissed.

Jul 13, 2018

Jul 12, 2018

Jul 11, 2018

Jul 10, 2018

Jul 3, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here