Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-288636; B-288636.2, November 23, 2001

Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-288636; B-288636.2, November 23, 2001 TITLE: Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-288636; B-288636.2, November 23, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288636; B-288636.2 DATE: November 23, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. File: B-288636; B-288636.2 Date: November 23, 2001 Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., and Robert F. Pezzimenti, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for the protester. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Maj. Howard Roth, and Capt. Ryan M. Zipf, Department of the Army, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging a cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 and alleging that the supporting management study failed to directly compare all of the positions identified in the agency's "most efficient organization" with the labor force at the start of the study is denied, since there is no legal requirement for such a detailed, "position-by-position" comparison. 2. Protest challenging agency decision to retain in-house logistics and public works functions as a result of a cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 and alleging that agency improperly failed to include costs for all of the personnel required to meet the requirements of the performance work statement (PWS), is denied, where the record provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's finding that the government's "most efficient organization" had identified and costed all positions necessary to meet PWS requirements. DECISION Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (JCWSI) protests the decision of the Department of the Army to retain logistics and public works functions at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in-house, rather than to contract for these services under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-99-R-0015. The Army decided to retain the services in-house based on the results of a cost comparison conducted pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, which compared JCWSI's proposal to perform the work against the government's in-house management plan. JCWSI challenges various aspects of the agency's administrative appeals board (AAB) decision. Although the AAB agreed with JCWSI on some of the appeal issues and directed that the in-house estimate be adjusted, the new cost comparison did not change the agency's initial determination to retain the services in-house. JCWSI primarily argues that the Army's in-house management plan for a "most efficient organization" (MEO) failed to reasonably explain reductions in staffing, and that the Army's in-house estimate does not include costs for all of the personnel in the MEO. We deny the protest. I. BACKGROUND In 1997, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) awarded a contract to Management Analysis, Inc. (MAI) to conduct a study of public works and logistics functions at 12 TRADOC installations, including Fort Jackson. For each installation, MAI was to develop a performance work statement (PWS), document the results of its study, provide a quality assurance surveillance plan, and include an independent government cost estimate based on a proposed MEO. (The protester does not challenge the multiple roles played by MAI.) As written, the PWS categorized the work to be performed under several maintenance and service areas, including: buildings and structures, utility systems operation, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems operation, dining facility equipment, grounds, surfaced area, range, materiel, transportation services, and base supply. Agency Report (AR) exh. J, PWS, at 1-2. The document prepared for Fort Jackson consisted of five chapters. AR exh. M. The first four chapters were MAI products and included an introduction explaining the overall purpose of the study, scope, and methodology (ch. 1); a general description of Fort Jackson's operations as of the start of the study (ch. 2); MAI's analysis and recommendations (ch. 3); and MAI's proposed MEO (ch. 4). Chapter 5 was prepared by Fort Jackson staff, hereinafter referred to as the MEO team. After MAI completed its work, the MEO team analyzed the recommendations and required functions. During this process, the MEO team met with all of the section supervisors and key staff to discuss staffing levels and possibilities for reductions or required additions, and asked supervisors to suggest improvements and reorganizations to increase efficiency. AR exh. T, Program Manager Statement, Sept. 19, 2001, at 1.