Sprint Communications Company, L.P.

B-271495 Apr 26, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against reallocation of telephone service requirements between FTS 2000 contractors is dismissed where reallocation process was provided for under the FTS 2000 contracts and is a matter of contract administration. Which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and for review by a cognizant board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. The service requirements selected for reallocation were to be awarded based on consideration of two factors of equal weight: (1) cost and (2) quality of service during the preceding contract phase and effectiveness of the most recent transition. Contractors were required to submit technical and cost proposals. GSA was to select one of three scenarios: (1) the Network A contractor (AT&T) wins 40 percent of the Network B's (Sprint) target revenue split. View Decision Matter of: Sprint Communications Company, L.P. File: B-271495 Date: April 26, 1996 Protest against reallocation of telephone service requirements between FTS 2000 contractors is dismissed where reallocation process was provided for under the FTS 2000 contracts and is a matter of contract administration; General Accounting Office generally does not exercise jurisdiction to review matters of contract administration, which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and for review by a cognizant board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. Attorneys DECISION Sprint Communications Company, L.P. protests the General Services Administration's (GSA) determination to reallocate 40 percent of Sprint's share of the FTS 2000 contract requirements to AT&T in the Year 7 Price Redetermination/Service Reallocation (PR/SR). Sprint challenges the conduct of the PR/SR process and the evaluation of proposals. We dismiss the protest. In 1987, GSA issued solicitation No. KET-JW-87-02, requesting proposals to furnish long-distance telecommunications services to federal agencies. As amended, the solicitation contemplated the award of two 10-year, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts--one for Network A for 60 percent of the requirement (with a guaranteed minimum of $270 million) and another for Network B for 40 percent (with a guaranteed minimum of $180 million). The solicitation divided the 10-year contract term into three periods--an initial 4-year period, followed by two successive 3-year periods--and provided GSA with the right to request revised prices and reallocate service requirements between the contractors prior to commencement of the second and third contract periods. The solicitation stated that proposals for price redetermination--repricing--would be requested during the fourth and seventh contract years; GSA would select service requirements for potential reallocation using a target of 40 percent of each network's estimated revenue over the remaining life of the contract. The service requirements selected for reallocation were to be awarded based on consideration of two factors of equal weight: (1) cost and (2) quality of service during the preceding contract phase and effectiveness of the most recent transition. In December 1988, GSA awarded the Network A contract (for 60 percent of the requirement) to AT&T and the Network B contract (for 40) percent to Sprint. The Year 4 PR/SR (undertaken in 1992) resulted in a determination to maintain the 60/40 percent split. On April 4, 1995, GSA issued to AT&T and Sprint a set of instructions--the "Year 7 Price Redetermination/Service Reallocation Document"--for the conduct of the Year 7 PR/SR. Contractors were required to submit technical and cost proposals. The instructions listed two evaluation factors of equal weight--technical and cost (including service/feature prices and transition costs). Based on the results of the evaluation, GSA was to select one of three scenarios: (1) the Network A contractor (AT&T) wins 40 percent of the Network B's (Sprint) target revenue split, (2) the Network B contractor wins 40 percent of the Network A's target revenue split, or (3) no change in the 60/40 percent target revenue split. On June 30 and July 10, Sprint and AT&T, respectively, filed protests with the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA), arguing that the conduct of the PR/SR was not in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the PR/SR instructions.