B-216321, SEP 24, 1984, 84-2 CPD 340
Highlights
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION - NOT FOR RESOLUTION BY GAO DIGEST: WHETHER BUS USED TO PERFORM TRANSPORTATION SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT CONFORMS TO CONTRACT TERMS IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. J.R.'S ARGUES THAT THE CONTRACT WITH SMITH SHOULD BE TERMINATED BECAUSE SMITH IS NOT PERFORMING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES AN ITEM CONFORMING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. SINCE SMITH CURRENTLY IS OPERATING UNDER THE OPTION YEAR PROVIDED UNDER THE CONTRACT AND A DECISION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE CONTRACT GENERALLY WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL MID-1985.
B-216321, SEP 24, 1984, 84-2 CPD 340
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION - NOT FOR RESOLUTION BY GAO DIGEST: WHETHER BUS USED TO PERFORM TRANSPORTATION SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT CONFORMS TO CONTRACT TERMS IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY.
J.R.'S CROWN TOURS:
J.R.'S CROWN TOURS (J.R.'S) PROTESTS AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO SMITH COMPANY (SMITH) FOR BUS SERVICES UNDER INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. F08602-82- B0049 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (AIR FORCE). J.R.'S CONTENDS THAT THE BUS CURRENTLY BEING USED TO PROVIDE BUS SERVICE UNDER THE CONTRACT DOES NOT MEET CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR CONDITIONING, BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT, AND LICENSING AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE FOR HIRE. J.R.'S ARGUES THAT THE CONTRACT WITH SMITH SHOULD BE TERMINATED BECAUSE SMITH IS NOT PERFORMING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS.
WE DISMISS THE PROTEST.
ONCE A CONTRACT HAS BEEN AWARDED, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES AN ITEM CONFORMING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS A MATTER OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. THIS OFFICE'S BID PROTEST FUNCTION DOES NOT INCLUDE REVIEW OF THIS MATTER, WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROCURING AGENCY. DONALD V. BRANDT, B-215243, JUNE 8, 1984, 84-1 CPD PARA. 610.
J.R.'S FURTHER ALLEGES THE AIR FORCE HAS MADE A DECISION TO GRANT SMITH AN ADDITIONAL OPTION YEAR AFTER THE CURRENT OPTION YEAR UNDER THE CONTRACT EXPIRES ON JUNE 30, 1985. SINCE SMITH CURRENTLY IS OPERATING UNDER THE OPTION YEAR PROVIDED UNDER THE CONTRACT AND A DECISION TO FURTHER EXTEND THE CONTRACT GENERALLY WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL MID-1985, THIS ASPECT OF THE PROTEST IS PREMATURE AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION.