JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.
Case: B-266326
Agency: Department of Defense : Defense Information Systems Agency
Protester: JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.
Date: 1996-02-05
Sustained
JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-266326; B-266327
DATE: February 5, 1996
TITLE: JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:JAFIT Enterprises, Inc.
File: B-266326; B-266327
Date: February 5, 1996
Quin B. Johnson for the protester.
Thomas T. Basil, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Contracting agency violated the competition requirements of the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 when it made sole-source awards
for services to a non-profit agency serving people with severe
disabilities, where the acquired services were not on the procurement
list maintained by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are
Blind or Severely Disabled, as required by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Act.
DECISION
JAFIT Enterprises, Inc. protests the sole source awards of purchase
orders by the Department of the Navy to Goodwill Industries for
administrative services at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training
Systems Division, Orlando, Florida. JAFIT protests that the Navy's
noncompetitive procurement violates procurement laws and regulations.
We sustain the protests.
JAFIT, a small disadvantaged business, was the incumbent contractor
performing these services under two contracts that were initially
awarded in 1992 as total small business set-asides. The contracts
expired on September 30, 1995.
Prior to the expiration of JAFIT's contracts, the Navy determined that
it had insufficient time to conduct competitive procurements for
follow-on contracts for these services. In April and May of 1995, the
contracting officer sought authorization to extend the terms of
JAFIT's contracts for 1 year, pursuant to the authority of Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 6.302-2, which allows noncompetitive
awards where unusual and compelling urgency precludes full and open
competition. This request was denied. In June and July, the
contracting officer decided to noncompetitively award "bridge"
purchase orders to Goodwill, pursuant to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act,
41 U.S.C. sec. 46-48c (1994), after JAFIT's contracts expired and until
competition for these services could be conducted and new contracts
awarded.
The Navy notified JAFIT of the awards to Goodwill on August 30, and
JAFIT protested to the Navy on September 8. The Navy denied JAFIT's
agency-level protests on September 18, and these protests to our
Office followed on September 28.
The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C. sec.
2304(a)(1) (1994), generally requires contracting agencies to obtain
full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures;
however, noncompetitive procedures are authorized where a statute
expressly authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through
another agency or from a specified source. 10 U.S.C. sec. 2304(c)(5).
The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act provides authority for noncompetitive
acquisitions for specified supplies and services. See FAR sec.
6.302-5(b)(2). Specifically, the Act established the Committee for
Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (hereafter the
"Committee") and granted it exclusive authority to establish and
maintain a procurement list of goods and services provided by
qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or disabled. See FAR
Subpart 8.7. Once an item or service has been added to the
procurement list, contracting agencies are required to procure that
item or service directly from a qualified workshop. 41 U.S.C. sec.
47(a), 48; 41 C.F.R. sec. 51-1.2, 51-2.2 (1995); FAR sec. 8.704; see
Jantec, Inc., B-243192, Mar. 14, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 289.
Here, the record establishes that the Navy's noncompetitive awards to
Goodwill were not authorized by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, as
claimed by the Navy, because, at the time of the awards, the services
acquired under the purchase orders were not listed on the Committee's
procurement list. Effective January 2, 1996, see 60 Fed. Reg. 61684
(Dec. 1, 1995), the committee added to the procurement list
"Administrative Services, Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems
Division, Orlando, Florida." In so doing, the Committee stated,
"[the Navy's] [a]ward of the current contract for these and other
services was not done under authority of the Committee's statute,
as the services were not on the Procurement List." Id.
The Navy does not allege, nor do we find, any other statutory
authority for its noncompetitive acquisition of these services.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...