Skip to Highlights
Highlights

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Forum election - Finality DIGEST: General Accounting Office will not consider a protest which sets forth the same issue raised by the protester in a claim before the contracting agency. GSX filed with DLA first a "warning" and then a "claim under the Contract Disputes Act" in which it contended that the soil removal was work which was covered by GSX's requirements contract and which therefore should be performed by GSX. That it is for work covered by GSX's existing requirements contract. It is our policy not to provide protesters with another forum to resolve issues which constitute a claim under an existing contract. We will not consider GSX's protest. The protest is dismissed.

View Decision

B-239549, Jul 5, 1990, 90-2 CPD 14

PROCUREMENT - Bid Protests - Forum election - Finality DIGEST: General Accounting Office will not consider a protest which sets forth the same issue raised by the protester in a claim before the contracting agency.

Attorneys

GSX Government Services, Inc.:

GSX Government Services, Inc. protests the issuance of invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62472-90-B-2239 by the Department of the Navy for the removal and disposal of soil contaminated with JP-5 jet fuel at Glenview Naval Air Station, Illinois.

We dismiss the protest.

GSX has a firm, fixed-price requirements contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the pickup, transportation, and disposal of various classes of wastes within a certain portion of the midwest. Upon learning that the Navy intended to dispose of the contaminated soil through a separate contractual action, GSX filed with DLA first a "warning" and then a "claim under the Contract Disputes Act" in which it contended that the soil removal was work which was covered by GSX's requirements contract and which therefore should be performed by GSX, because if performed by another contractor, GSX would be entitled to its "lost profits." On May 4, 1990, GSX protested to our Office the Navy's issuance of its solicitation on the identical grounds, i.e., that it is for work covered by GSX's existing requirements contract. On May 11, DLA issued a final decision denying GSX's claim on the basis that the work in question did not fall within the scope of GSX's requirements contract.

Although GSX concedes that this ussue constitutes a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq. (1988), it urges ust o consider the matter in order to avoid the potential for "double payment" for these services: once to the contractor under the Navy's solicitation and again to GSX in the form of an award of its "lost profits."

This does not provide sufficient justification for this Office to review an issue statutorily left to another forum. GSX's protest relates primarily to a breach claim-- a contract administration matter. It is our policy not to provide protesters with another forum to resolve issues which constitute a claim under an existing contract, therefore, we will not consider GSX's protest. Union Natural Gas Co., B-238032, Jan. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 117.

Accordingly, the protest is dismissed.

GAO Contacts