New Technology Management, Inc., B-287714.2; B-287714.3; B-287714.4, December 4, 2001

New Technology Management, Inc., B-287714.2; B-287714.3; B-287714.4, December 4, 2001 TITLE: New Technology Management, Inc., B-287714.2; B-287714.3; B-287714.4, December 4, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287714.2; B-287714.3; B-287714.4 DATE: December 4, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: New Technology Management, Inc. File: B-287714.2; B-287714.3; B-287714.4 Date: December 4, 2001 Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Natalie Stoney Walters, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for the protester. Daniel N. Hylton, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. John W. Klein, Esq., and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., for the Small Business Administration. Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency decision that sole-source contract awarded under Small Business Administration's section 8(a) program should include only one 1-year option-as a result of which the contract value remained under the $3 million ceiling requiring competitive procurement-does not violate prohibition against dividing current requirements into separate procurements to avoid requirement for competition, where record shows that the performance period in fact reflects agency's requirements. 2. Protester's request for a recommendation that it be reimbursed the costs of filing two prior protests on the basis that the agency failed to timely implement its proposed corrective action is denied where the record shows that the agency did, in fact, timely implement the promised corrective action that prompted the dismissal of the protests. DECISION New Technology Management, Inc. (NTMI) protests the award of a contract for information technology "help desk" support to OASAS Learning Solutions, Inc., made by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a sole-source basis pursuant to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) section 8(a) program. [1] NTMI contends that the sole-source award was improper. NTMI also seeks a recommendation that it be reimbursed the costs of filing two prior protests associated with the procurement of these services. We deny the instant protests and the request for reimbursement of the costs of filing the prior protests. NTMI previously performed these services pursuant to a sole-source section 8(a) contract which was to expire on December 30, 2000, but which was extended until May 31, 2001 while USDA sought to reprocure the services. On March 8, 2001, USDA issued a "request for proposal -- statement of work" for these services and asked for the submission of technical and cost proposals. On March 20, NTMI filed a protest in which it alleged that the solicitation was unclear as to which part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was to govern; failed to clearly state what the cost proposal should contain and how it would be evaluated; failed to include a basis for award or technical evaluation criteria; and was "hopelessly muddled" in terms of its statement of requirements. Mar. 20, 2001 Protest at 6-9. On March 22, USDA advised this Office that it planned to take corrective action. The agency stated that it would cancel the solicitation and "initiate a new contracting action within the next couple of weeks pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 8.4 [Federal Supply Schedules]." Agency Letter of March 22, 2001. Since the cancellation of a solicitation renders a protest academic, Dyna-Air Eng'g Corp., B-278037, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 132, we dismissed the protest on March 27. On April 26, USDA issued a request for quotations (RFQ) to obtain these services as a section 8(a) set-aside under the Federal Supply Schedule program. On May 8, NTMI filed a protest alleging that the RFQ failed to disclose the weights of the stated evaluation criteria and failed to identify the hardware and software that would be supported after agency migrations. NTMI also alleged that the contracting officer's response to a question regarding the treatment of disputes was improper, and that her responses to questions regarding the work requirements were ambiguous. On May 16, USDA advised this Office that it planned to take corrective action. The agency stated that it would cancel the solicitation and "initiate a new contracting action in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation in the near future." Agency Letter of May 8, 2001. We dismissed the protest as academic on May 17. The record shows that USDA immediately began considering its options--both competitive and sole-source--for the new contracting action, and that its preparations were in continuous progress up until the award of a contract to OASAS in September. In May, the agency decided to improve contractor service at the help desk by using a performance-based service contract.