B-170206, APR 1, 1971

B-170206, APR 1, 1971

BID PROTEST - REVISED PROCEDURES CONCERNING A RESPONSE BY MILITARY BASE MANAGEMENT, INC., TO PROTESTS MADE BY DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES, INC., AND MANPOWER, INC., AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO MILITARY BASE MANAGEMENT, INC. ALL ISSUES WERE THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED IN B-170206 AND B-170706, MARCH 29, 1971, AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE COMP. GEN. HAS ADVISED THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF MESS ATTENDANT SERVICE CONTRACTS.

TO SELLERS, CONNER & CUNEO:

WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 29, 1971, FURNISHING A RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF MILITARY BASE MANAGEMENT, INC. (MBM) TO PROTESTS MADE BY DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES, INC. (DYNAMIC) AND MANPOWER, INC. OF JACKSON (MANPOWER) AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO MBM UNDER RFP NO. N00204-70-R- 0029.

YOU INDICATE THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS ADVISED YOU THAT THE COPIES OF THE PROTESTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS IN RESPONSE THERETO, WHICH YOU OBTAINED FROM OUR OFFICE ON MARCH 24, 1971, WERE THE FIRST DOCUMENTS THEY HAD RECEIVED FROM OUR OFFICE RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER. OUR RECORDS REFLECT THAT THIS IS A CORRECT STATEMENT. HOWEVER, ON JANUARY 19, 1971, MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF HELD A CONFERENCE WITH MR. J. N. KAHN, VICE PRESIDENT OF MBM, PURSUANT TO 4 CFR 20.2, IN REFERENCE TO ANOTHER PROTEST (B-170706) PENDING IN OUR OFFICE WHEREIN DYNAMIC HAD QUESTIONED AN AWARD TO MBM UNDER ANOTHER BUT SIMILAR PROCUREMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CONFERENCE WE BROUGHT TO MR. KAHN'S ATTENTION THE PENDENCY OF THIS ACTION AND DISCUSSIONS WERE CONDUCTED RELATIVE THERETO, WITH AN INDICATION THAT WE FELT IT DESIRABLE TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY CHANGE ITS METHOD OF PROCUREMENT FOR ALL MESS ATTENDANT SERVICE CONTRACTS. NO FURTHER CONTACT OR CORRESPONDENCE WAS HAD WITH MBM UNTIL THE CONFERENCE AFFORDED YOUR MR. DEES ON MARCH 24, 1971. AT THAT TIME MR. DEES WAS ADVISED THAT PRELIMINARY DECISIONS HAD BEEN REACHED ON ALL OF THE PENDING PROTESTS INVOLVING MBM OR ITS AFFILIATES, AND THE MATTERS WAS AWAITING MY APPROVAL.

ON MARCH 29, 1971, THE DECISION LETTERS WERE SIGNED BUT WERE NOT RELEASED PENDING THE RECEIPT OF YOUR REFERENCED LETTER WHICH WE RECEIVED ON MARCH 30, 1971, AT 4:35 P.M. WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED YOUR COMMENTS AND ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN AWARDING THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION TO MBM, BUT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THEY DO NOT RAISE ANY ISSUES NOT ALREADY THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISIONS OF MARCH 29 IN B-170206 AND B 170706, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ENCLOSED.

CONCERNING YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT A DECISION NOT TO EXERCISE THE OPTIONS UNDER THESE CONTRACTS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO USE THE SAME STANDARD FORM AND MANNING CHARTS IN SOLICITING NEW PROPOSALS, YOUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH OF EACH OF THE ENCLOSED DECISIONS, WHEREIN WE ADVISE THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES IN QUESTION.