Skip to main content

B-243831.2, Jun 18, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

B-243831.2 Jun 18, 1991
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Prior dismissal of protest against termination for convenience of protester's contract and issuance of solicitation for same services is affirmed on reconsideration since the allegation concerns a matter of contract administration which is not for review by the General Accounting Office. Asserting that the contracting officer had acted in bad faith. dismissed the protest because it raised a matter of contract administration over which our Office does not have bid protest jurisdiction. OPMI/CMI's basis for reconsideration is incorrect. Which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and for review by the cognizant board of contract appeals or the U.S.

View Decision

B-243831.2, Jun 18, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - GAO procedures - GAO decisions - Reconsideration DIGEST: Prior dismissal of protest against termination for convenience of protester's contract and issuance of solicitation for same services is affirmed on reconsideration since the allegation concerns a matter of contract administration which is not for review by the General Accounting Office.

Attorneys

OPMI/CMI Management-- Reconsideration:

OPMI/CMI Property Management requests reconsideration of our decision in OPMI/CMI Property Management, B-243831, May 1, 1991, 91-1 CPD Para. ***, in which we dismissed its protest against the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) termination for convenience of an OPMI/CMI contract, and the issuance of solicitation No. 26-91-117 for the same services.

OPMI/CMI initially protested the termination for convenience on April 29, 1991, asserting that the contracting officer had acted in bad faith. dismissed the protest because it raised a matter of contract administration over which our Office does not have bid protest jurisdiction. By a letter dated May 1, which we received after our dismissal, the protester "withdrew" its protest. On May 6 OPMI/CMI "refiled" its protest, raising the identical issue and arguing that we do take jurisdiction over protests alleging bad faith contract terminations. We treat this submission as a request for reconsideration of our May 1 dismissal.

OPMI/CMI's basis for reconsideration is incorrect. Our bid protest jurisdiction encompasses the award or proposed award of procurement contracts. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3552 (1988). Therefore, we generally do not review matters of contract administration, which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and for review by the cognizant board of contract appeals or the U.S. Claims Court. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(1) (1991); Specialty Plastics Prods., Inc., B-237545, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 228. The decision to terminate a contract, even where bad faith is alleged, is a matter of contract administration. See Advanced Energy Control Sys., Inc., B-201249, May 20, 1981, 81-1 CPD Para. 392.

We do review bid protest challenges to contract terminations when the terminations are based on agency conclusions that the original award was improper. See, e.g., Norfolk Shipbuilding, and Drydock Corp., B-219988.3, Dec. 16, 1985, 85-2 CPD Para. 667. That is not the case here, and the cases cited by the protester, ACR Indus., Inc., B-235465, Aug. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 199, and Caldwell Realty, et al., B-236519 et al., Aug. 25, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 181, are therefore inapposite because they involve terminations based on agency findings that the initial contract award was improper.

Since the termination at issue does not fall within the limited circumstances which we will review in this regard, the dismissal is affirmed.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs