A firm requested reconsideration of a recommendation for corrective action pursuant to a decision under a General Services Administration (GSA) procurement. The protester argued that the termination and resolicitation of the current contract would result in cost savings to GSA in the current contract year. GAO noted that: (1) the protester originally alleged that a geographic restriction for the operation and maintenance of the National Credit Card Program unduly restricted competition; (2) GSA awarded the contract, despite the protest, because it determined that the services were urgently needed; (3) it recommended that GSA not exercise any options under the contract and conduct a new competition without the current geographic restriction; and (4) the protester was awarded the costs incurred in filing and pursuing its protest. GAO found that: (1) the delay in resoliciting the contract would be potentially disruptive to the agency's mission; (2) contract termination was not an appropriate remedy since it was recommended that GSA not exercise any contract options; (3) the propriety of GSA actions with respect to the future solicitation of the requirement was not an issue cognizable under its jurisdiction to review bid protests; and (4) the termination and resolicitation of the current contract was not in the government's best interest in view of the services needed and the startup period required by a new contractor. Accordingly, the prior decision was affirmed.
Skip to Highlights