Imaging Systems Technology, B-283817.3, December 19, 2000

B-283817.3 Dec 19, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Cancellation of solicitation based on a determination that in-house performance would cost the government less than contractor performance was improper where comparison of in-house and contractor performance was neither realistic nor fair. The PIDP system is a standardized automated radar display. The logistics support covered by the RFP was defined in the "Work Description Document" to include depot-level repair. " the items whose prices were to be provided in proposals and evaluated as part of the award decision were items for which fixed labor rates were to be proposed. /1/ RFP Sec. B. The evaluated prices for those items (which together represented the great majority of the offerors' evaluated price) were calculated by multiplying the proposed hourly labor rates against the RFP's estimate of the number of hours the item would be needed. View Decision Matter of: Imaging Systems Technology File: B-283817.3 Date: December 19, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Imaging Systems Technology (IST) protests the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. F04606-99-R-90052, issued by the Department of the Air Force for logistics support for the Programmable Indicator Data Processor (PIDP) air traffic control and landing system. The agency cancelled the solicitation based on a determination that performing the work in-house would result in cost savings. IST, the incumbent contractor, contends that the cancellation lacked a reasonable basis because the agency failed to conduct a realistic or fair comparison of the cost of in-house and contractor performance. We sustain the protest. The RFP, a total set-aside for small businesses, sought proposals to furnish all necessary resources required to provide logistics support for the PIDP system and peripheral equipment. The PIDP system is a standardized automated radar display, tracking, and flight data processing system used in the provision of air traffic control services at locations identified in the RFP, including dozens in the continental United States together with others as distant as Japan and Germany. The logistics support covered by the RFP was defined in the "Work Description Document" to include depot-level repair, software engineering support, emergency on-site technical assistance, contingency assets (spares) procurement and management, configuration management and control, and logistics information reporting during performance of the contract. Other than a relatively minor "data item," the items whose prices were to be provided in proposals and evaluated as part of the award decision were items for which fixed labor rates were to be proposed. /1/ RFP Sec. B. The evaluated prices for those items (which together represented the great majority of the offerors' evaluated price) were calculated by multiplying the proposed hourly labor rates against the RFP's estimate of the number of hours the item would be needed. Id. Sec. M-502. Those line items were telephone technical support (for which the RFP estimated 2,400 annual hours); depot-level support (estimate: 500 annual hours); and on-site emergency technical support (estimate: 500 annual hours). Id. The RFP was issued on June 30, 1999; proposals were due on August 31. During the course of August, the Air Force decided (for reasons not relevant here) to review the need for any of the work covered by the RFP to be performed by a contractor, rather than brought in-house at Tinker Air Force Base. That review led to the conclusion that the contractor's work was either unnecessary or could be performed by [deleted] personnel at Tinker who were already working on software support. /2/ Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts at 2. Overall, the Air Force concluded that the PIDP support effort no longer represented a significant workload, that the "low level of activity over the last few years does not justify the cost of a private contractor," and that any work that did remain could be performed by Air Force personnel at Tinker as "other duties as assigned." Id. at 4. This led to a decision to cancel the RFP and bring the work in-house at Tinker. Because of delays within the Air Force, the amendment cancelling the RFP was not issued until September 14, 1999. By then, however, two firms, including IST, had submitted proposals. Because of the cancellation, the Air Force decided not to open the proposals. Id. IST protested the cancellation to our Office. Among the various issues raised by the protester was the allegation that the cancellation violated 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2462 (1994), because the agency had not performed a realistic and fair comparison of the cost of in-house and contractor performance. On January 6, 2000, the Air Force advised our Office that the agency intended to take corrective action.