B-298682, Global Solutions Network, Inc., November 27, 2006

B-298682 Nov 27, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Solutions Network, Inc. (GSN), a small business, protests the conduct of a procurement by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1-06-R-0033 for task order management and financial support for the "HRsolutions" program office. The protest contends that a named Army official in the [deleted] office is biased against the protester, that the procurement is being conducted under commercial item procedures, and that the government estimate and workload data in the solicitation are incorrect and misleading. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298682, Global Solutions Network, Inc., November 27, 2006 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: Global Solutions Network, Inc. File: B-298682 Date: November 27, 2006 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester. Peter F. Pontzer, Esq., and Lt. Col. Brian J. Godard, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Glenn Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency is improperly conducting procurement under commercial item procedures is denied where protester has not shown that use of those procedures will cause it competitive prejudice. DECISION Global Solutions Network, Inc. (GSN), a small business, protests the conduct of a procurement by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91QV1'06'R'0033 for task order management and financial support for the –HRsolutions— program office.[1] The protest contends that a named Army official in the [deleted] office is biased against the protester, that the procurement is being conducted under commercial item procedures, and that the government estimate and workload data in the solicitation are incorrect and misleading. We deny the protest. The Army issued the RFP on July 29, 2006, as a set-aside for historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses, seeking firm fixed-price proposals to provide services for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. The RFP also provides –reimbursement at cost— of both other direct costs (described as including –supplies not otherwise provided—), and travel (described as covering –long distance travel for approved business meetings, conference support, and marketing calls—), up to specified annual ceiling amounts. RFP at 5-6. The RFP was issued as a commercial item procurement under the procedures in Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The RFP specified that proposals will be evaluated on the basis of technical approach, personnel resumes, past performance information, and a price proposal. RFP at 26. The technical approach, personnel, and past performance factors are to be equal to each other in importance, and when combined, are to be significantly more important than price in selecting an awardee. RFP at 27. First, GSN objects that a named Army official who may be involved in the procurement process is biased against GSN. According to GSN, if the official participates in the procurement, she will irreparably taint the selection process. Our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sections 21.1(c)(4) and (f) (2006), require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for protest, and that the grounds stated be legally sufficient. Here, the protester's claims that the named official might be involved in the procurement, and thus might taint the procurement, merely anticipate improper agency action, and thus, are speculative and premature. We will not question agency action on the basis of such speculation.[2] See Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-279161 et al., Apr. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 115 at 5; VSE Corp.--Recon. & Entitlement to Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4, Dec. 28, 1994, 94'2 CPD para. 260 at 2. Next, GSN argues that the use of commercial item procedures in the procurement is improper because the tasks to be performed under the contract do not require the type of services that are or could be –sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices,— and therefore, the services do not qualify as a commercial item under the –commercial item— definition in FAR sect.