[Protest of NASA Decision Not To Procure Services Under Formally Advertised RFP]

A firm protested the fact that the janitorial services for a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility were being procured under a negotiated, incentive-type contract, rather than under an allegedly less costly, formally advertised solicitation. Initially, NASA had solicited proposals for the services under a negotiated set-aside because, in the contracting officer's opinion, it was impossible to draft adequate specifications for the servicing of the multitenant research and development facility which were necessary to a firm fixed-price, formally advertised contract. After the protest was filed, the agency decided that the best way to obtain these services was to add the requirement to the facilities operating services contract as a subcontract. The protester continued to argue that the contract should be awarded to the lowest bidder in a formally advertised procurement. The protester also alleged that NASA had chosen this approach as a means of handpicking a subcontractor through the prime contractor. GAO held that the determination of the Government's minimum needs and the best method of accommodating those needs is primarily the responsibility of the contracting agencies. GAO also held that the agency's use of negotiation procedures is proper where the contracting agency requires a high level of technical competence to satisfy its minimum needs and adequate specifications describing those needs cannot be drafted. GAO stated that the protester failed to show that NASA lacked a reasonable basis for canceling the solicitation and subcontracting the requirement. Accordingly, the protest was denied.