Diversified Technology & Services of Virginia, Inc., B-282497, July 19, 1999

B-282497 Jul 19, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that sole-source extension of contract is an improper result of poor planning on the agency's part is denied where the record shows that the agency engaged in extensive planning (once it determined that a change in contract type would better serve the government's interests). Diversified alleges that the extension is improper because it is due to a lack of planning on the agency's part. Diversified was selected for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. 01-3K06-97 for these same services. A hearing was held in our Office in November. Diversified's contract was terminated for the convenience of the government. Responsibility for the procurement was transferred to a different branch of the Agricultural Research Service and assigned to a different contracting officer. View Decision Matter of: Diversified Technology & Services of Virginia, Inc. File: B-282497 Date: July 19, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Diversified Technology & Services of Virginia, Inc. protests the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service's sole-source extension of contract No. 53-3K06-8-8 for operations and maintenance support services for its Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. Diversified alleges that the extension is improper because it is due to a lack of planning on the agency's part. We deny the protest. In September 1997, Diversified was selected for award under request for proposals (RFP) No. 01-3K06-97 for these same services. Three offerors protested improprieties in the evaluation and source selection process, and a hearing was held in our Office in November. During the course of that hearing, the agency recognized that the evaluation had been improper, and proposed to reevaluate proposals and make a new source selection based on that reevaluation. As a result, Diversified's contract was terminated for the convenience of the government. In January 1998, responsibility for the procurement was transferred to a different branch of the Agricultural Research Service and assigned to a different contracting officer. The new contracting officer reviewed the procurement and determined that the contract type should be changed from cost-reimbursement to fixed-price, and that a reevaluation of the initially submitted proposals would no longer be practical. Agency Report, Tab C, Jan. 1998 Initial Proposal Review Assessment, at 1. /1/ The contracting officer expected that new proposals could be requested without changing the performance work statement (PWS), thus limiting the time and effort required for a complete rewrite. Id. The agency sent a revised solicitation package to the original competitive range offerors on March 5. Protest, Tab 6. Although the PWS was unchanged, the revised RFP generated 119 questions from prospective offerors, seeking clarification of the PWS in light of the higher level of risk that a contractor would bear under a fixed-price contract. Agency Request for Dismissal at 5. After reviewing the questions, the contracting officer determined that the PWS should be rewritten, in order to respond to the questions and to reflect the agency's approach to performance-based service contracting. Id. The agency notified offerors that the PWS was being substantially revised, established a deadline for the submission of any additional questions, and stated that a consolidated amendment would be issued to reflect the revisions. Protest, Tab 7, Letter from Contracting Officer to Offerors (Mar. 12, 1998). Agency personnel in Washington and New Orleans coordinated efforts to edit and redraft the new PWS. When it became apparent that their workload was preventing them from finishing the redraft as quickly as was necessary, they decided in August 1998 to hire a contractor to write a second PWS draft. Agency Request for Dismissal at 6. In November, the contractor delivered its final PWS draft, which the agency then reviewed and finalized for release. On March 5, 1999, the agency published in the Commerce Business Daily a notice of its intent to negotiate on a sole-source basis an extension to its contract with J.A. Jones Management Services. Protest, Tab 9. On March 15, the agency issued a proposed schedule for the procurement, projecting milestones such as the release of the amended RFP on April 16, 1999, closing date for receipt of proposals on May 14, and (after negotiations and the submission of best and final offers) award in September. /2/ Protest, Tab 15, Letter from Contracting Officer to Offerors at 2 (Mar. 15, 1999).