EDPEnterprises, Inc., B-284533.6, May 19, 2003

B-284533.6 May 19, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights EDP Enterprises, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF19-99-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, to determine whether it would be more economical to perform installation-level logistics support functions in-house at Fort Riley, Kansas, or to contract for these services under the referenced solicitation. EDP, the incumbent small business food service provider at Fort Riley, argues that the Army has improperly bundled food services and dining facility attendant services (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "food services") with other logistics support functions, thereby unduly restricting the private-sector portion of this A-76 competition. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-284533.6, EDP Enterprises, Inc., May 19, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: EDP Enterprises, Inc. File: B-284533.6 Date: May 19, 2003 Keith L. Baker, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon & Tolle, for the protester. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Captain Anissa N. Parekh, and Kevin LaChance, Esq., Department of the Army, and John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., U.S. Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that food services are improperly bundled with other logistics support functions, thereby unduly restricting the private-sector portion of the competition conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, is sustained where the agency has failed to provide a reasonable justification that this bundling is necessary to meet its needs. DECISION EDP Enterprises, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF19'99-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, to determine whether it would be more economical to perform installation-level logistics support functions in-house at Fort Riley, Kansas, or to contract for these services under the referenced solicitation.[1] EDP, the incumbent small business food service provider at Fort Riley, argues that the Army has improperly bundled food services and dining facility attendant services (hereinafter, collectively referred to as food services) with other logistics support functions, thereby unduly restricting the private-sector portion of this A-76 competition. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND Original Competition The RFP was originally issued on December 1, 1999, as a total small business set'aside and contemplated the award of a contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods if a private-sector offeror successfully competed against the government's most efficient organization (MEO), the in-house staffing plan. The RFP incorporated by reference the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-14, captioned Limitations on Subcontracting, which provides that in performing non-construction services, the offeror/contractor agrees that at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel will be expended for employees of the concern. The following requirements, which previously had been performed on a non-bundled basis at Fort Riley by either government personnel or private contractors, were bundled in this RFP: central issue facility operations; oil analysis laboratory operations; storage, warehouse, and distribution operations; hazardous material control center operations; transportation motor pool services; general and direct support maintenance services, including aviation maintenance services; ammunition supply point operations; bulk petroleum oil and lubricant operations; and food services. EDP participated in the original private-sector portion of the A-76 competition as a subcontractor to the private-sector offeror whose proposal ultimately was selected as representing the best value to the government. In March 2001, pursuant to OMB Circular A-76 and the Circular's RSH, the agency performed a cost comparison between this best value private-sector proposal and the government's MEO, and concluded that it would be more economical to perform the bundled logistics support functions in-house by implementing the MEO, rather than by awarding a contract. The best value private-sector offeror subsequently filed an administrative appeal challenging the agency's cost comparison decision. On May 14, 2001, the administrative appeals board (AAB) sustained in part and denied in part the issues raised in the administrative appeal.