Protest Against Certain Procurement Actions

A firm protested certain procurement actions by the Air Force. The protester was the incumbent contractor on a contract which contained two 1-year options, and the Air Force decided to resolicit rather than exercise the second option. Because a protest caused a delay in awarding the new contract, the Air Force entered into negotiations with the protester for a short-term contract extension until the protest was resolved. However, because the price proposed by the protester appeared to be unreasonable, the Air Force hired civilian employees on an emergency basis to provide for short-term needs. The protester contended that the Air Force did not have proper justification for not exercising the second option or extending the contract on a short-term basis. It also protested that the Air Force failed to perform an in-house comparison, as required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, and claimed that a short-term contract extension would have been less costly than the use of civilian employees to complete the contract. Protests of decisions not to exercise options are not for consideration by GAO under bid protest procedures. With an exception which is not applicable in this case, GAO does not review compliance with OMB Circular A-76. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed. A claim for breach of contract and expenditures resulting from reliance on alleged Government assurances of a contract extension was dismissed, because that claim must be processed under the Contract Disputes Act and may not be considered by GAO.