[Protest Against Use of Standard Competitive Procedures]

A firm protested the use of standard competitive procedures to secure preliminary road location surveying under a request for proposals issued by the Forest Service. The protester argued that the surveying should have been procured in accordance with the special procedures set forth in the Brooks Act for the Federal Government's procurement of architect-engineer (A-E) services. GAO has held that both the language of the Brooks Act and its legislative history indicate that the Act's procedures, which do not include price competition, apply whenever the State in which the desired services are to be performed requires an A-E firm to meet a particular degree of professional capability in order to perform them, or the services logically or justifiably may be performed by a professional A-E firm and incidental to A-E services which clearly must be procured by the Brooks Act method. The protester suggested that its view was supported by the legislative history of the recent Military Construction Codification Act which Congress expressly required that contracts for A-E services in connection with military construction and family housing projects be procured by the Brooks Act method. However, in the opinion of GAO, the congressional intent was that, when construction is involved, surveying will be considered A-E services subject the Brook Act method. The survey which did not require performance by an A-E firm and which was not incidental to an A-E project, should be procured under competitive statutes and regulations, not the selection method prescribed in the Brooks Act. Accordingly, the protest was denied.