LDDS WorldCom

LDDS WorldCom BNUMBER: B-266257; B-266258 DATE: February 8, 1996 TITLE: LDDS WorldCom ********************************************************************** Matter of:LDDS WorldCom File: B-266257; B-266258 Date: February 8, 1996 J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for the protester. Francis J. O'Toole, Esq., Robert J. Conlan, Jr., Esq., Joseph C. Port, Jr., Esq., and Michael L. Shore, Esq., Sidley & Austin; and Nathaniel Friends, Esq., and Steven W. DeGeorge, Esq., AT&T Corporation, for AT&T Corporation, an interested party. Carl Wayne Smith, Esq., and H. Jack Shearer, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Same issues and arguments as those resolved in a recent decision involving the same agency and the same procurement will not be considered as no useful purpose would be served. 2. Protest alleging that agency cancellation of solicitations prior to receipt of responses from offerors was improper is denied where the record shows that the cancellation decision was reasonable; there is no evidence that the agency issued the solicitations without intending to award contracts; and the regulatory requirement for a written determination supporting the cancellations, cited by the protester, does not apply because the solicitations were canceled before receipt of responses. 3. Contention that the agency improperly modified an existing contract beyond its scope instead of holding a separate competitive procurement is denied where a review of the contract terms shows that the added services could have been anticipated from the face of the contract itself, and where the added services are not materially different from the services currently procured under the contract. DECISION LDDS WorldCom protests the cancellation of solicitation Nos. RG20JUL951511 and RG20JUL951512 by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and the agency's corresponding decision to obtain these services from AT&T via the Defense Commercial Telecommunications Network (DCTN) Contract. LDDS contends that the agency is improperly consolidating services onto AT&T's DCTN contract, and onto an upcoming sole-source transition contract the agency intends to award to AT&T until completion of a global competition for these telecommunication services.[1] LDDS also protests that the consolidation of international services onto the DCTN contract (and transition contract) exceeds the scope of those contracts, and that the agency has awarded an improper letter contract to AT&T. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 20, 1995, DISA received a requirement from the Air Force for two separate 1.544 megabit per second circuits to be in place not later than October 16. These dedicated circuits were to connect McChord Air Force Base (AFB), Washington, with Nellis AFB, Nevada, and Gunter AFB Annex, Alabama, with Tyndall AFB, Florida. Since these services involve command and control of military forces, they are exempt from the coverage of the government-wide FTS 2000 contract, pursuant to the terms of 10 U.S.C. sec. 2315 (1994). While these services normally would have been ordered using AT&T's DCTN contract, DISA procurement personnel concluded that they could not properly fill these requirements on the DCTN contract because it was slated to expire on February 29, 1996. Since the two circuits had an estimated 60-month service life, DISA procurement personnel decided instead to procure the two circuits competitively via posting on an electronic bulletin board. On July 27, DISA placed a telecommunications service request, commonly referred to as an "inquiry," on its electronic bulletin board available to the telecommunications industry. This bulletin board uses an accelerated competitive procedure, known as an "Inquiry/Quote/Order" process, whereby the inquiry references certain standard DISA provisions and contains information unique to the requirement. Offerors respond with a quote, and if successful, receive an order for the service. The inquiry required that quotes be received by 3 p.m. on August 11. After placing inquiries for these two dedicated circuits on the bulletin board, DISA's procurement personnel received guidance explaining that use of the DCTN contract to procure new services was appropriate even if the duration of the new requirements exceeds the remaining term of the DCTN contract or the term of the planned sole source transition contract. In addition, this guidance advised that, whenever appropriate, the DCTN contract should be the contract of first choice in fulfilling such requirements. Thus, on August 4, a week before quotes were due, DISA canceled the two solicitations.