One Source Mechanical Services, Inc.; Kane Construction, B-293692; B-293802, June 1, 2004

One Source Mechanical Services, Inc.; Kane Construction, B-293692; B-293802, June 1, 2004 TITLE: One Source Mechanical Services, Inc.; Kane Construction, B-293692; B-293802, June 1, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293692; B-293802 DATE: June 1, 2004 ********************************************************************** One Source Mechanical Services, Inc.; Kane Construction, B-293692; B-293802, June 1, 2004 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: One Source Mechanical Services, Inc.; Kane Construction File: B-293692; B-293802 Date: June 1, 2004 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, for the protesters. Joseph A. Gonzales, Esq., and Larry E. Beall, Esq., United States Army Corps of Engineers; and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency failed to provide maximum practicable preference to making multiple awards under solicitations for services, as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, is sustained where contracting officer*s conclusion that multiple-award approach could not be used is not supported by the record. DECISION One Source Mechanical Services, Inc. (OSMS), a small business, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91278-04-R-0007, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the operation, maintenance, repair, and minor construction of Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) facilities in the United States (the O&M RFP). OSMS protests the Corps*s decision not to set aside part or all of the procurement for small businesses, and objects to the Corps*s decision not to permit multiple awards under the solicitation. Kane Construction, a small business, protests the terms of solicitation No. W91278‑04‑R‑0012, issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, for the award of a single ID/IQ contract for the renovation, repair, and minor construction at various MEDCOM facilities in the United States (the Renovation RFP).Kane protests the Corps*s decision not to permit multiple awards under this RFP as well. We sustain the protests. These protests involve two solicitations of a planned set of 13 ID/IQ *toolbox* contracts to provide assessment, construction, renovation, repair, and maintenance services to support MEDCOM. Agency Report (AR) for O&M RFP, Tab H, Revised Acquisition Plan, at 3. The acquisition plan contemplated that the 13‑contract *toolbox* would consist of three contracts for architect-engineer services, three contracts for renovation, repair, and minor construction, three contracts for construction repair and maintenance services (5‑year contracts, awarded separately at 2-year intervals), two contracts for asbestos abatement and removal services, one contract for facility assessment studies, and one contract for preventative maintenance and inspections. Id. The O&M RFP was issued on December 17, 2003. The Corps anticipated making a single contract award to the *best value* offeror selected through full and open competition. As revised by amendment No. 3, the RFP provided that initial proposals were due on February 26, 2004. On February 20, the Corps postponed the due date for receipt of initial proposals pending a decision from our Office on OSMS*s timely protest. The Renovation RFP was issued on February 10, 2004. The Corps anticipated making a single contract award to the best value offeror selected through full and open competition. As revised by amendment No. 1, the RFP provided that initial proposals were due on March 11. On March 9, the Corps postponed the due date for receipt of initial proposals pending a decision from our Office on Kane*s timely protest. From the time of acquisition planning through the issuance of the two solicitations at issue in these protests, the Corps*s intent has been to make a single award under each solicitation. After issuance of the O&M RFP, a potential offeror (not one of the protesters) complained to the Corps that multiple awards were required for that solicitation, as well as for any subsequent solicitations. AR for O&M RFP, Tab J, Letter from Potential Offeror to Contracting Officer, at 3 (Dec. 29, 2003). Responding to that company*s argument, the contracting officer executed a document, entitled *Determination and Findings Decision to Use Single Award Task Order Approach,* which was dated January 22, 2004 for the O&M RFP. AR for O&M RFP, Tab I, Determination & Findings.