B-298401, Armor Group International Training, Inc., August 31, 2006

B-298401 Aug 31, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Armor Group International Training, Inc. protests the Department of State's notice that the agency intends to make a sole-source award to BSR, Incorporated for antiterrorism driver training services based upon the agency's determination that BSR was the only known source that was capable of meeting the agency's requirements, which included a geographic restriction. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298401, Armor Group International Training, Inc., August 31, 2006 Decision Matter of: Armor Group International Training, Inc. File: B-298401 Date: August 31, 2006 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, 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 Protest challenging a solicitation's geographic restriction is denied, where the restriction is reasonably found to be necessary for the agency to meet its needs. DECISION Armor Group International Training, Inc. protests the Department of State's notice that the agency intends to make a sole-source award to BSR, Incorporated for anti'terrorism driver training services based upon the agency's determination that BSR was the only known source that was capable of meeting the agency's requirements, which included a geographic restriction. We deny the protest. On May 30, 2006, State published on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web-site its intention to negotiate and award, on a sole-source basis, an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contact to BSR for defensive training services. These training services are one part of an overall anti-terrorism training program, which is conducted at the agency's Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC) in Dunn Loring, Virginia. When the driver training services are required [s]tudents and staff are required to break from their training regimen at DSTC, travel to the contractor's site, for one to six days of training, and . . . then return to the DSTC to continue their course of instruction. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Draft Justification of Minimum Needs, at 2. The FedBizOpps notice identified a number of minimum requirements, including that the facility for driving training must be within 80 miles of the United StatesCapitolBuilding, and stated that BSR was the only known source that could satisfy the agency's requirements. AR, Tab 3, FedBizOpps Notice, May 30, 2006. Armor, whose driving facility is approximately 145 miles from the United States Capitol, argues that the 80-mile geographic limitation exceeds the agency's needs and therefore does not provide a basis for negotiating a sole-source contract with BSR. In response the agency states that the geographic limitation was established to allow for the safe and efficient conduct of training. Specifically, the agency notes that the geographic restriction limits the drive time to approximately 1.5 hours each way allowing for students and instructors to reasonably commute for a one-day course without requiring an overnight stay. In 2005, the DSTC conducted 125 courses, training 2,200 students, 1,300 of the 2,200 students attended one-day training courses. AR, Tab 7, Validation of Requirements Memorandum, at 2. The agency contends that permitting a distance beyond a reasonable 1-day commute would result in real costs to the agency for additional time required for training and would increase the amount of –employee productive time— lost due to increased travel time.[1] AR at 6, 11. Armor disagrees with State's judgment regarding the geographic restriction, arguing that there has been no showing that driving an additional hour each way to and from Armor's facility would affect the agency's training needs. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires agencies to conduct their procurements using –full and open competition.— 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(a)(1)(A) (2000). CICA, however, permits noncompetitive acquisitions in specified circumstances, such as when only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy the agency's requirements. See 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(c)(1). Here, as noted above, the agency has determined that only one source will satisfy its geographic restriction. An agency properly may restrict a procurement to an offeror or offerors within a specified area if the restriction is reasonably found to be necessary for the agency to meet its needs. See Canal Claiborne Ltd., B-244211, Sept. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 266 at 2; Pacific Dry Dock & Repair Co., B-237611.2, B'237751, Mar. 19, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 302 at 6. We find reasonable the agency's explanation supporting the 80-mile geographic limitation for these driver training services, even if this results in a sole-source procurement.