Maritime Global Bank Group

B-272552 Aug 13, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest against the Department of the Navy's execution of an agreement with a bank for the provision of on-base banking services at a particular installation is dismissed as beyond General Accounting Office's jurisdiction where record shows that no procurement action relating to agency's mission. Maritime maintains that the Navy's selection was unreasonable. Firms were requested to provide various information to the Navy relating to the range of services offered. Maritime contends that the Navy's selection of ANB was unreasonable because Maritime offered a better rate structure. Because it is uncertain that ANB will be able to establish banking operations in a timely manner. The transaction is one for the procurement of property or services. View Decision Matter of: Maritime Global Bank Group File: B-272552 Date: August 13, 1996 Protest against the Department of the Navy's execution of an agreement with a bank for the provision of on-base banking services at a particular installation is dismissed as beyond General Accounting Office's jurisdiction where record shows that no procurement action relating to agency's mission, or resulting in a benefit to the government has occurred. Attorneys DECISION Maritime Global Bank Group protests the proposed selection of the Army National Bank (ANB) by the Department of the Navy for the establishment of banking operations at the Naval Training Center (NTC) at Great Lakes, Illinois. Maritime maintains that the Navy's selection was unreasonable. We dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction. During January 1996 the Navy, through the publication of newspaper announcements and letters of solicitation to particular financial institutions, sought proposals for the establishment of a full-service bank at the NTC. Firms were requested to provide various information to the Navy relating to the range of services offered, rate structures, and hours of operation. The Navy received numerous proposals and, after seeking clarifying information, announced its selection of ANB. This announcement provided that ANB would be required to obtain all relevant regulatory approvals and authorizations prior to commencing operations, and also advised that ANB would be required to enter into a written agreement with the NTC that specifically outlined the services to be provided. Maritime contends that the Navy's selection of ANB was unreasonable because Maritime offered a better rate structure, and because it is uncertain that ANB will be able to establish banking operations in a timely manner. We exercise bid protest jurisdiction over procurements by federal agencies. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3551-3556 (1994). Where a concession or similar type of transaction results in a benefit to the government, the transaction is one for the procurement of property or services, and is thus subject to our bid protest jurisdiction; whether the performance of the business opportunity in question relates to the advancement of the agency's mission depends, in turn, upon whether the agency's workload will be reduced or whether the effort is somehow rendered, either directly or indirectly, in support of the agency's mission requirements. Thus, for example, our Office has assumed jurisdiction over a protest against the award of a photocopy concession to provide copying services paid for by the public, where the services in question are a part of the agency's mission requirement of furnishing copies of documents to the public. West Coast Copy, Inc.; Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-254044; B-254044.2, Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 283. Similarly, we have found jurisdiction where the agency was granting a concession for providing initial haircuts to new recruits at an Air Force base because the record reasonably established that receiving an initial haircut was an important aspect of the training experience, the provision of which was integral to the agency's mission. Gino Morena Enters., 66 Comp.Gen. 231 (1987), 87-1 CPD para. 121, aff'd on recon, B-224235.2, May 13, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 501. We also have found jurisdiction where the government receives a benefit in connection with the transaction, even where the benefit is not, strictly speaking, related to fulfilling the agency's mission. See Americable Int'l, Inc., B-225570, May 5, 1987, 87-1 CPD para. 471, aff'd, The Department of the Navy--Recon., B-225570.2, July 20, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 64 (agreement requiring cable television service provider to furnish free cable television services to all Navy ships and duty rooms on base confers benefit on government). On the other hand, where any benefit to the government is speculative or contingent, we have found jurisdiction lacking, and have declined to consider the merits of the protest, even though earmarks of a procurement were present. See North Florida Shipyards, Inc., B-243575, May 3, 1991, 91-1 CPD para.