Cox & Associates CPAs, PC, B-287272.2; B-287272.3, June 7, 2001

Cox & Associates CPAs, PC, B-287272.2; B-287272.3, June 7, 2001 TITLE: Cox & Associates CPAs, PC, B-287272.2; B-287272.3, June 7, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287272.2; B-287272.3 DATE: June 7, 2001 ********************************************************************** Cox & Associates CPAs, PC, B-287272.2; B-287272.3, June 7, 2001 Decision Matter of: Cox & Associates CPAs, PC File: B-287272.2; B-287272.3 Date: June 7, 2001 William E. Slade, Esq., T. Michael Guiffre, Esq., and Rodney A. Grandon, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., and Steven A. Alerding, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for Science Applications International Corporation, the intervenor. Capt. Stephen Edward See, John D. Inazu, Esq., and Gregory E. Petkoff, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging an agency's corrective action in response to a General Accounting Office protest is denied where the corrective action--the cancellation of a defective request for quotations that sought competition among Federal Supply Schedule vendors for highly complex and costly services and the conduct of a new, full and open negotiated competition for the services--is not shown to be unreasonable. 2. General Accounting Office will not recommend that protester be reimbursed protest costs where the agency promptly took corrective action in response to a protest prior to the date for filing the agency report. DECISION Cox & Associates CPAs, PC protests the cancellation of request for quotations (RFQ) No. F01600-01-Q-6001, issued by the Department of the Air Force, soliciting competition among Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) vendors for the acquisition of budget information systems services. The Air Force's decision to cancel the RFQ was the result of corrective action taken in response to Cox's earlier protest (B-287272) objecting to the award of an order under the RFQ to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under that firm's FSS contract. Cox also requests that we recommend that Cox be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing that earlier protest. We deny the protest and request for entitlement to costs. The Air Force requested quotations from 13 FSS vendors, including Cox and SAIC, to perform budget information support services for the agency's Office of Financial Management and Budget for a base year with 4 option years. Vendors were informed that the agency would "select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, Proposal Risk, and Cost/Price," and that "[t]his was a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulations." RFQ, attach. A, para. 9. The RFQ did not, however, state the relative weights of the evaluation criteria or further describe the evaluation criteria. Prior to the receipt of quotations, Cox states that it asked the Air Force if there was an incumbent contractor for this work and was informed that there was not. Declaration of Cox's President (Feb. 12, 2001) at 2. The Air Force determined that SAIC's higher-priced quote reflected the best overall value and awarded an order to SAIC under that firm's FSS contract. [1] The Air Force notified Cox on January 25 of the award to SAIC, and Cox requested a debriefing on January 30. A debriefing was provided to Cox on January 31, and Cox protested the award to SAIC to our Office on February 12. Cox complained that the Air Force downgraded its quote because Cox did not provide a transition plan, but the RFQ did not request a transition plan and Cox had been informed that there was no incumbent contractor or contract. In addition, Cox complained that the Air Force unreasonably evaluated the firm's past performance. On March 7, prior to the date for submission of its report, the Air Force informed us that it would take corrective action in response to the protest. Specifically, the Air Force stated that the RFQ evaluation criteria "were not sufficiently detailed" and as a result, the Air Force planned to resolicit the requirement as a full and open competition under a negotiated procurement pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. The Air Force stated that conducting a new competition could take a year and that during this time it would continue to receive the services from SAIC under the order issued to that firm's FSS contract. Based on the foregoing, we dismissed Cox's first protest. Cox objects to the Air Force's corrective action, arguing that the agency should not cancel the RFQ and conduct a new competition for this requirement, but should amend the RFQ and obtain new quotes from the original FSS vendors.