Lackland 21st Century Services Consolidated--Protest and Costs, B-285938.6, July 13, 2001

B-285938.6 Jul 13, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is dismissed since the protester would have us consider a proposed course of action that has been abandoned. A-76 on the basis that the agency has not yet awarded it the contract (the promised corrective action that led to the dismissal of the earlier protest) is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably elected to delay award until completion of a review by the agency's Office of Inspector General. Which was. Since L-21 was the commercial offeror whose proposal was selected under solicitation No. These adjustments have resulted in a cost comparison decision favoring performance of the workload by contract.". This TRO was granted on December 20 and expired on December 30. View Decision Lackland 21st Century Services Consolidated--Protest and Costs, B-285938.6, July 13, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Lackland 21st Century Services Consolidated (L-21) requests that our Office reinstate and sustain its earlier protests of a decision by the Department of the Air Force that it would be more economical to perform base operations support at Lackland Air Force Base in-house, rather than by contract. We dismissed those protests as academic after the Air Force advised our Office that its review of the protest allegations and the record led it to conclude that the decision should be reversed, and that the workload should instead be performed by contract (and hence by L-21, since L-21 was the commercial offeror whose proposal was selected under solicitation No. F41689-99-R-0031 for comparison with the government's in-house cost estimate under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76). In addition, L-21 seeks a recommendation that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing both this request, and its earlier protests. We dismiss L-21's request that we sustain its earlier protest on the basis that the earlier protest remains academic; we deny L-21's request for reimbursement of the costs of filing these protests. BACKGROUND L-21 initially protested to our Office on November 6, 2000 (B-285938.3), and supplemented its protest on November 13 (B-285938.5). In these protests, L-21 argued that errors in the agency's cost comparison led to an erroneous conclusion that continued in-house performance of base operations support would be more economical than contracting out the services. By letter dated December 13, submitted in lieu of an agency report on the merits, the Air Force explained that its review of L-21's protest allegations and the record led it to conclude "that certain adjustments to the cost comparison should be made. These adjustments have resulted in a cost comparison decision favoring performance of the workload by contract." The letter also acknowledged that L-21 had been selected as the contractor to perform these services in an earlier part of the A-76 process, thus, the letter, in effect, advised that the Air Force would be making award to L-21. Given these conclusions, the Air Force requested that the protests be dismissed as academic. By decision also dated December 13, we agreed and dismissed the protests. After our Office dismissed L-21's protest, the union representing base support employees at Lackland filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas seeking to enjoin the Air Force from awarding this contract as planned. This TRO was granted on December 20 and expired on December 30; despite the expiration of the TRO, however, this litigation was not dismissed by the court until March 7, 2001. Both the Air Force and L-21 advise our Office that the Air Force represented to the court that it would not award a contract during the ongoing litigation without first providing 5 business days notice. In addition to the court case, there were several other pertinent events that occurred shortly after our Office dismissed L-21's protests. First, on December 20 (the same day the district court granted the TRO), the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense (DOD) requested a review by the DOD's Office of Inspector General (IG) of the cost comparison performed under OMB Circular No. A-76 to determine the most economical means of performing base operations services at Lackland. /1/ One day later, several members of Congress from the state of Texas also requested an IG review of the cost comparison. /2/ On December 22, the IG formally advised the Air Force that it was initiating an audit of the Lackland cost comparison review at the request of the DOD Deputy Secretary.