About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-283727.3 1 (2001-08-22)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptamkw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 




         G    A    O0                                               Comptroller General
             A a * Integrity Reliability                             of the United States
 ~ccountabthty Inert Rea iy
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548



          Decision


          Matter of: Aberdeen Technical Services--Modification of Recommendation

          File:       B-283727.3

          Date:       August 22, 2001

          Ruth Y. Morrel, Esq., DynCorp, for the protester.
          Vera Meza, Esq., U.S. Army Materiel Command, for the agency.
          Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
          GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
          DIGEST

          General Accounting Office modifies recommendation to include reimbursement of
          protester's costs of preparing its proposal where agency canceled the solicitation,
          thus depriving protester of opportunity to compete.
          DECISION

          Aberdeen Technical Services (ATS) requests that we recommend that the
          Department of the Army reimburse ATS for costs the firm incurred in preparing its
          proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD05-98-R-0565.

          The Army issued the RFP on August 4, 1998, as part of a cost comparison pursuant to
          Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76 to determine whether it would
          be more economical to manage and operate base industrial operations in-house at
          the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, rather than contract for these services. Of
          the three private sector proposals submitted in response to the RFP, the Army
          concluded that ATS's proposal offered the best value to the government. Ultimately,
          the Army concluded that performance in-house would be less expensive than
          awarding a contract to ATS.

          ATS filed a protest with our Office challenging the agency's decision. We sustained
          ATS's protest on several grounds, and recommended that the Army either revise the
          in-house cost estimate and ATS's offer in accordance with the findings in our
          decision and conduct a new cost comparison, or revise the RFP, reopen the
          competition among the private sector offerors, and then conduct a new cost
          comparison. Aberdeen Tech. Servs., Inc., B-283727.2, Feb. 22, 2000, 2000 CPD   46.