AT&T Corporation

AT&T Corporation BNUMBER: B-270344; B-270344.2 DATE: February 28, 1996 TITLE: AT&T Corporation ********************************************************************** Matter of:AT&T Corporation File: B-270344; B-270344.2 Date: February 28, 1996 Pamela G. Sauber, Esq., and Steven W. DeGeorge, Esq., for the protester. Anthony L. Cogswell, Esq., for Sprint Communications Company, L.P., an intervenor. H. Jack Shearer, Esq., and Clifton M. Hasegawa, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that agency improperly terminated protester's contract is not for consideration as it concerns a matter of contract administration not within General Accounting Office bid protest function. 2. Protest against the sole-source award of a contract for telecommunications circuit is denied where the contracting agency reasonably determined that only the proposed awardee was capable of meeting the agency's urgent delivery requirement. DECISION AT&T Corporation protests the Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Information Technology Contracting Office's (DITCO) termination for convenience of the firm's contract, for a point-to-point private line telecommunications circuit for an estimated 24-month period, and the agency's determination to reprocure this requirement under contract with Sprint Communications Company, L.P. AT&T argues that DITCO's actions improperly deprived it of an opportunity to furnish the circuit, and constituted an unjustified sole-source procurement from Sprint. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 7, 1995, DITCO received a telecommunications service order for a point-to-point telecommunications circuit between Fort McPherson, Georgia, and Fort Hood, Texas. The service order required that service be established by October 16 and specified that the "service date is critical." The circuit was to support an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) exercise involving more than 200 personnel at various locations throughout the country. DITCO was informed that failure to meet the scheduled delivery date would adversely impact the agency's ability to provide telecommunications connectivity for "live" traffic to be transmitted for the nationwide exercise, and jeopardize other circuit installation schedules around the United States. On September 14, the agency issued telecommunication service request (TSR) No. AO29AUG9500072/I on the DITCO Acquisition Bulletin Board to obtain competitive quotations for the circuit.[1] The TSR identified a service date of "16 Oct 95," and stated that the "service date is critical." Quoters were advised that award would be made to the responsible firm whose quote was most advantageous to the government and that the agency intended to award the contract without holding discussions. On September 26, DITCO received six quotes responding to the TSR. Sprint submitted the lowest quote, but stated that the service date would be "45 calendar days ARO [after receipt of order]." Based on this limitation, the agency determined that Sprint's quotation did not meet its requirements and did not further consider Sprint for award at that time. On September 28, DITCO issued a service order to AT&T, based on its submission of the second-low quotation. On October 4, ARPA personnel expressed concern to DITCO that, due to a lack of facilities available to AT&T at Fort Hood, AT&T would be unable to provide the circuit by the required delivery date. DITCO immediately relayed this concern to AT&T and was assured by AT&T that the required delivery date would be met. The agency again discussed this matter with AT&T on October 5, October 10, and October 12; AT&T continued to assure the agency that it would meet the required service date. On Friday, October 13, AT&T informed the agency that, contrary to its prior representations, it would be unable to meet the required October 16 service date due to its inability to obtain access to the necessary equipment and facilities at Fort Hood, Texas. The contracting officer immediately contacted Sprint which stated that it could provide the required circuit by the October 16 service date, specifically noting that it had access to facilities at Fort Hood which were not available to AT&T.[2] Additionally, Sprint offered to provide the circuit at the same price it had submitted in its September 26 quotation. Based on AT&T's acknowledged inability to meet the October 16 delivery date, DITCO terminated AT&T's contract. Then, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. sec. 2304 (c)(2) (1994) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec.