BNUMBER:  B-272552
DATE:  August 13, 1996
TITLE:  Maritime Global Bank Group

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Maritime Global Bank Group

File:     B-272552

Date:August 13, 1996

A. Patrick Doyle, Esq., James A. Dobkin, Esq., Rosemary Maxwell, Esq., 
and     Kevin A. Zambrowicz, Esq., Arnold & Porter, for the protester.
Margaret A. Olsen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest against the Department of the Navy's execution of an agreement 
with a bank for the provision of on-base banking services at a 
particular installation is dismissed as beyond General Accounting 
Office's jurisdiction where record shows that no procurement action 
relating to agency's mission, or resulting in a benefit to the 
government has occurred.

DECISION

Maritime Global Bank Group protests the proposed selection of the Army 
National Bank (ANB) by the Department of the Navy for the 
establishment of banking operations at the Naval Training Center (NTC) 
at Great Lakes, Illinois.  Maritime maintains that the Navy's 
selection was unreasonable.

We dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction.

During January 1996 the Navy, through the publication of newspaper 
announcements and letters of solicitation to particular financial 
institutions, sought proposals for the establishment of a full-service 
bank at the NTC.  Firms were requested to provide various information 
to the Navy relating to the range of services offered, rate 
structures, and hours of operation.  The Navy received numerous 
proposals and, after seeking clarifying information, announced its 
selection of ANB.  This announcement provided that ANB would be 
required to obtain all relevant regulatory approvals and 
authorizations prior to commencing operations, and also advised that 
ANB would be required to enter into a written agreement with the NTC 
that specifically outlined the services to be provided.

Maritime contends that the Navy's selection of ANB was unreasonable 
because Maritime offered a better rate structure, and because it is 
uncertain that ANB will be able to establish banking operations in a 
timely manner.

We exercise bid protest jurisdiction over procurements by federal 
agencies.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3551-3556 (1994).  Where a concession or 
similar type of transaction results in a benefit to the government, 
the transaction is one for the procurement of property or services, 
and is thus subject to our bid protest jurisdiction; whether the 
performance of the business opportunity in question relates to the 
advancement of the agency's mission depends, in turn, upon whether the 
agency's workload will be reduced or whether the effort is somehow 
rendered, either directly or indirectly, in support of the agency's 
mission requirements.  Thus, for example, our Office has assumed 
jurisdiction over a protest against the award of a photocopy 
concession to provide copying services paid for by the public, where 
the services in question are a part of the agency's mission 
requirement of furnishing copies of documents to the public.  West 
Coast Copy, Inc.; Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-254044; 
B-254044.2, Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  283.  Similarly, we have found 
jurisdiction where the agency was granting a concession for providing 
initial haircuts to new recruits at an Air Force base because the 
record reasonably established that receiving an initial haircut was an 
important aspect of the training experience, the provision of which 
was integral to the agency's mission.  Gino Morena Enters., 66 Comp. 
Gen. 231 (1987), 87-1 CPD  para.  121, aff'd on recon, B-224235.2, May 13, 
1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  501.  We also have found jurisdiction where the 
government receives a benefit in connection with the transaction, even 
where the benefit is not, strictly speaking, related to fulfilling the 
agency's mission.  See Americable Int'l, Inc., 
B-225570, May 5, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  471, aff'd, The Department of the 
Navy--Recon., B-225570.2, July 20, 1987, 87-2 CPD  para.  64 (agreement 
requiring cable television service provider to furnish free cable 
television services to all Navy ships and duty rooms on base confers 
benefit on government).  

On the other hand, where any benefit to the government is speculative 
or contingent, we have found jurisdiction lacking, and have declined 
to consider the 
merits of the protest, even though earmarks of a procurement were 
present.  See North Florida Shipyards, Inc., B-243575, May 3, 1991, 
91-1 CPD  para.  434 (although solicitation for the lease of a drydock 
facility by the Navy to a private concern required offerors to submit 
a capital maintenance plan with their offers, the agency was not 
obligated to obtain the services under the terms of the contract, and 
thus any procurement aspect of the transaction was merely 
speculative).  

The Navy maintains that our Office lacks jurisdiction to consider 
Maritime's protest because the bank at NTC will not be in any way 
related to the performance or support of its mission requirements.  
Maritime argues that this transaction does in fact relate to the 
advancement of the agency's mission, and therefore is subject to our 
jurisdiction.  In this regard, Maritime asserts that Navy personnel 
who conduct their banking business at the facility will save the time 
it takes to travel to a remote location outside of the facility, and 
that personnel also will not be required to wait in line for their 
paychecks, which may be electronically deposited at the bank.  
Maritime concludes that this saved time will be available for 
training, which is the activity's central mission, and that this 
transaction therefore is subject to our review.  

We find no benefit to the agency sufficient to establish jurisdiction 
in this case.   The services are for the direct benefit of Navy 
personnel, not the Navy.  Navy personnel are not required to use the 
services and the bank is not required to provide particular services 
to particular individuals or groups.[1]  In fact, the record shows 
that there is a credit union located at the Navy's installation which 
provides many of the same services that will be provided by ANB; there 
is no preference specified as between the two institutions, and agency 
personnel may freely choose between them.  

There also is no basis for finding that the services in question are 
directly or indirectly related to the Navy's fulfillment of its 
mission.  While the on-base presence of ANB may be convenient for 
agency personnel that choose to bank with the concern, ANB will not be 
performing work that the government would otherwise be obliged to 
perform, and there is at best a tenuous connection between the 
availability of banking services and the Navy's central mission at the 
installation, which is to provide training to its personnel.  In this 
regard, there is no indication (contrary to the protester's 
suggestion) that time spent by personnel on banking was found to 
detract from NTC's fulfilling its mission, or that establishing 
on-site banking services otherwise was motivated by the agency's 
desire to promote its training mission.  We therefore decline to 
consider the merits of Maritime's protest.[2]

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. For example, Instruction No. 5381.5A, issued by the Office of the 
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAVINST-5381.5A), Paragraph 5(c)(4)(c), only 
requires the bank to extend loan services to agency personnel where to 
do so is consistent with the bank's accepted practices and the overall 
interests of the institution and its stockholders.  

2. Maritime argues that the selection of ANB is inconsistent with Navy 
instruction governing the establishing of banking operations at Naval 
facilities.  Even if this assertion were correct, internal agency 
instructions are not binding.  Quality Sys., Inc., B-235344; 
B-235344.2, Aug. 31, 1989, 89-2 CPD  para.  197.