Desktop Alert, Inc.

B-417170 Jan 24, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Desktop Alert, Inc. generally protests the actions of the Department of the Army in planning and obtaining an emergency alert system for use at multiple Army installations. The protester contends the Army is accomplishing this work improperly through both in-house use of existing government off the shelf (GOTS) software and various contracts or task orders, although the protester presents no information about any specific solicitations or contracts. The protester argues the Army's use of GOTS software contravenes both Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Desktop Alert, Inc. File: B-417170 Date: January 24, 2019 Howard Ryan, Desktop Alert, Inc., for the protester. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Richard Hagner, Esq., Jason W. Allen, Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest of an agency's decision to perform requirements in-house rather than to contract for them is dismissed because such decisions are a matter of executive branch policy. 2. Protest alleging violation of statutory preferences applicable to the purchase of commercial items is dismissed because such preferences are inapplicable to an agency's in-house performance of requirements. 3. General challenge to alleged past and present agency acquisitions and other non-acquisition actions, without specifying any particular procurement, fails to state a valid basis for protest. DECISION Desktop Alert, Inc. generally protests the actions of the Department of the Army in planning and obtaining an emergency alert system for use at multiple Army installations. The protester contends the Army is accomplishing this work improperly through both in-house use of existing government off the shelf (GOTS) software and various contracts or task orders, although the protester presents no information about any specific solicitations or contracts. The protester argues the Army's use of GOTS software contravenes both Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12. We dismiss the protest. First, the protester contends the Army was required to conduct an A-76 competition to determine whether to use an in-house solution versus a private sector contract to meet its need for an emergency alert system, and that since 2008 federal law has prohibited the conduct of such competitions. Protest at 2-3. Second, the protester contends the Army violated "longstanding federal acquisition policy to utilize the commercial sector for the acquisition of goods and services." Id. at 3-4. Third, the protester challenges multiple unspecified Army procurements as improper sole-source acquisitions. Id. at 2. The protester claims it is unable to specify solicitation or contract numbers because the Army allegedly used oral solicitation procedures. Protester's Response to Request for Dismissal at 2. The protest includes additional arguments, such as a contention that the Army's actions are wasting tax dollars. We have considered all of the protester's arguments and although we address only a portion here, we find none of the arguments constitute a valid timely protest basis. A-76 Competition Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 sets forth executive branch policy for determining whether to perform services in-house or under contract. Contrary to the protester's assertions, an agency's decision to perform services in-house need not be based on the results of an A-76 cost comparison. Techniarts Eng'g., B-243045, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD ¶ 250 at 1; Marann Inventories, Inc. - Recon., B-237651.4, July 20, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 54. Thus, the lack of such a study provides no basis to object to the Army's action. Id. Also, the prohibitions cited by the protester are prohibitions on the use of A-76 competitions to outsource work currently performed by federal employees. See e.g., Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245 § 8040 (Sept. 28, 2018); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113 § 742 (Dec. 18, 2015). Here the challenged action is not outsourcing but insourcing. Our Office generally does not review agency decisions to perform requirements in-house rather than to contract for them, because such decisions are a matter of executive branch policy. See Daniels Mfg. Corp., B-253637, June 7, 1993, 93-1 CPD ¶ 439; Sterling Bakery, Inc., B-232469, Sept. 16, 1988, 88-2 CPD ¶ 255.