A community college district protested an Army solicitation to provide educational services for 1 year. The protester contended that the Army's issuance of the solicitation: (1) violated Department of Defense (DOD) policy, and (2) was in derogation of its contract with the Air Force. After the Army issued the solicitation, the protester agreed to extend its sole-source contract with the Air Force to supply educational services with the understanding that the protester would submit a proposal with terms, conditions, and a contract price adjustment mutually acceptable to both parties. Shortly after the protester filed its protest with GAO, the Air Force terminated for convenience that portion of the protester's contract applicable to the Army. GAO held that the Air Force instruction and the memoranda cited by the protester reflect policies adopted by DOD officials, not requirements imposed by law. GAO would not consider this contention, because it has no authority to require adherence to executive branch policies. GAO noted that the award under the Army's solicitation would not be inconsistent with the Air Force contract since, prior to award, the Air Force had terminated that portion of the protester's contract which overlapped with the Army solicitation. GAO held that, if the protester still believes that the partial termination was improper, its recourse is to file a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed.
Skip to Highlights