B-298481, Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, LP, September 7, 2006

B-298481 Sep 07, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, LP (MBE) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0930-06-R-A401, issued by the Defense Supply Center Columbus, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for an indefinite quantity of fiber optic cables. MBE asserts that DLA is obligated to procure the items listed in this RFP under current contracts with MBE. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298481, Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, LP, September 7, 2006 Decision Matter of: Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, LP File: B-298481 Date: September 7, 2006 Brad Benjamin for the protester. Gail Booth, Esq., and Edward C. Hintz, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, and Michael J. Noble, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agencies. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that procurement violates agency's obligation to place orders under various contracts held by protester concerns matter of contract administration, which Government Accountability Office will not review. 2. Agency is not required to order supplies under non-mandatory Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, and where it is in agency's best interests--including need to establish –best value— among potential offerors--agency may compete its requirements among commercial sources of supply instead of under non-mandatory FSS. DECISION Murray-Benjamin Electric Company, LP (MBE) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. SP0930-06-R-A401, issued by the Defense Supply Center Columbus, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for an indefinite quantity of fiber optic cables. MBE asserts that DLA is obligated to procure the items listed in this RFP under current contracts with MBE. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on an unrestricted basis, sought offers on nine different fiber optic cables used in support of the Nuclear Power Plants, Weapon System Code 21N. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period, with up to 4 option years. [1] The RFP set a contract maximum of $3 million and a minimum of $45,000. Offers were to be evaluated for –best value— on the basis of price, past performance, proposed delivery, surge and sustainment, socioeconomic support, DLA mentoring business program, and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day program, with price approximately equal in weight to all other factors. Prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals, MBE submitted an offer and filed this protest with our Office. MBE principally argues that, instead of competing the requirement, the agency should have purchased certain of the RFP's line items under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, Department of Defense E-Mall contract, or previously negotiated Indefinite Delivery Purchase Orders (IDPO), and the other items under other unidentified MBE contract vehicles. MBE notes that five of its IDPO contracts have been extended into 2007, and asserts that the agency is obligated under these contracts to procure the items from MBE.[2] Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, our jurisdiction to resolve bid protests extends to resolving disputes concerning the alleged violation of procurement laws and regulations in connection with the award of contracts by federal agencies. 31 U.S.C. sect. 3551-3552 (2000), amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, sect. 326, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004). In exercising this authority, we do not review matters of contract administration (with exceptions not relevant here), which are within the discretion of the contracting agency and are, under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, for review by a cognizant board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a); Hawker Eternacell, Inc., B'283586, Nov. 23, 1999, 99'2 CPD para. 96 at 3. Resolving this aspect of MBE's protest would entail interpreting MBE's existing contracts and determining whether DLA's actions constituted breaches of those contracts. This is a matter of contract administration, and therefore will not be considered.[3] In a related argument, MBE asserts that the agency should have placed orders under the protester's FSS contract instead of competing the requirement because, under the FSS, no further competition is required. In this regard, MBE notes that the agency has previously relied upon Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 8.404 in making FSS purchases, and that FAR sect. 8.002 makes the General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the FSS, a required source of supply.