BNUMBER:  B-280021 
DATE:  August 18, 1998
TITLE: Malone Construction Company, B-280021, August 18, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Malone Construction Company

File:     B-280021

Date:August 18, 1998

Rob Malone for the protester.
Maj. Scott D. Schuler and Capt. Jean M. Aylward, National Guard 
Bureau, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq. and Michael R. 
Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that consolidation of construction work on three projects into 
one procurement unduly restricts competition from small businesses is 
denied where record shows that, due to limited storage space and 
restricted access to the project sites, the agency reasonably 
concluded that its needs require that all three projects be performed 
by one contractor.

DECISION

Malone Construction Company, a small business, protests the 
consolidation of three construction projects at Scott Air Force Base, 
Illinois, into one procurement under invitation for bids (IFB) No. 
DAHA11-98-B-0003, issued by the National Guard Bureau/U.S. Property & 
Fiscal Office for Illinois.  Malone contends that the IFB is unduly 
restrictive because consolidating the three projects into one 
procurement excludes small business participation.

We deny the protest.

The IFB includes separate plans and specifications for three projects:  
(1) alteration of an aircraft maintenance hangar, (2) construction of 
general purpose aircraft maintenance and engine inspection and repair 
shops, and (3) construction of a fuel cell/corrosion control hangar.  
Award is to be based on total prices for the three projects.

The work under the IFB is required for the relocation of the 126th Air 
Refueling Wing from the O'Hare Air Reserve Station in Chicago to Scott 
Air Force Base.  Memorandum of law at 2.  This relocation effort was 
mandated by the 1995 Base Relocation and Closure Commission 
legislation, which required that the Scott Air Force Base facility be 
operational by July 1999.  Id.  In order to close the facility at 
O'Hare and meet the relocation requirements of the 126th Air Refueling 
Wing, the agency reports that 17 construction projects, including the 
three encompassed by the IFB, will have to be performed over a short 
period of time and on a limited site at Scott Air Force Base.  Id. 

The agency contends that its consolidation of the three projects into 
one procurement was proper.  In addition to arguing that it will save 
money by using one contract instead of three, the agency maintains 
that consolidation of the work is necessary as a result of conditions 
at the work sites.  In this respect, the agency reports that there is 
only limited storage space available for the construction projects.  
Although some storage will be permitted in a hangar, most of the 
available storage space is adjacent to the site of the fuel 
cell/corrosion control hangar and can only be reached by workers on 
all three projects by passing through that site.  Id. at 5.  Extensive 
utility and road work also will periodically restrict access to the 
project areas.  Id.  The agency determined that only by limiting the 
construction to one contractor--rather than three--will it be possible 
to efficiently use this limited space in a manner that ensures timely, 
accident-free contract performance.  The agency also notes that the 
sites for these three projects are within 50 feet of each other and 
that other projects will occupy the space surrounding the three 
projects with the exception of the limited storage space adjacent to 
the fuel cell/corrosion control hangar site.  Id. at 4-5; Agency's 
July 20 response at 3.  Thus, the construction work is being done in a 
relatively confined area where access, storage and traffic problems 
are of concern.  The agency decided that its needs require that one 
contractor perform all three projects.

In preparing a solicitation for supplies or services, a contracting 
agency must specify its needs and solicit offers in a manner designed 
to achieve full and open competition; restrictive provisions and 
conditions may be used only to the extent necessary to satisfy the 
needs of the agency.  10 U.S.C.  sec.   2305(a)(1)(A)(i), (B) (1994); 
Advanced Elevator Servs., Inc., B-272340, B-272340.2, Sept. 26, 1996, 
96-2 CPD  para.  125 at 3.  Since bundled, consolidated or total-package 
procurements combine separate, multiple requirements into one contract 
and have the potential for restricting competition by excluding firms 
that can furnish only a portion of the requirement, a bundled 
requirement will be upheld only where it is shown to be necessary to 
meet the agency's needs.  Advanced Elevator Servs., Inc., supra.  

We believe the agency has reasonably justified consolidating the three 
projects based on the special conditions present at the site.  It is 
clear that limited storage space exists for these construction 
projects.  While Malone argues that additional storage space is 
available north and south of the maintenance hangar, the agency 
reports that these areas will be used in the performance of other 
projects.   Memorandum of law at 4-5; Agency's July 20 response at 5.  
The record supports the agency's assertion that the only access to the 
storage space adjacent to the fuel cell/corrosion control hangar site 
is through that site, which will be undergoing construction.  It is 
also not disputed that due to extensive utility and road work, access 
to the construction projects will be periodically restricted.   
Memorandum of law at 5.  The record also shows that due to the overall 
schedule for relocating the 126th Air Refueling Wing, the work on each 
of the three projects is required to be performed largely, although 
not completely, simultaneously.  We think that given the limited 
storage area, the access difficulties, and the schedule constraints, 
the agency reasonably concluded that having only one contractor do all 
three projects is required to meet the agency's needs.[1]  
Accordingly, we conclude that the bundling of the projects in one 
solicitation is permissible here.

The protest is denied.               

Comptroller General
of the United States
 
1. Malone argues that, as a result of the total value of the three 
projects under the IFB, it is unlikely that a small business could 
compete effectively for the contract.  While it may be that small 
businesses will decline to compete due to the size of this project, 
there is no legal requirement that a contracting agency limit a 
particular contract to a certain dollar value in order to make it more 
attractive to small businesses.  In this regard, just as an agency is 
not required to cast its procurement in a manner that neutralizes the 
competitive advantages some firms may have over the protester by 
virtue of their own particular circumstances, an agency likewise is 
not required to craft a solicitation so as to ensure the protester's 
retention in the competition to the detriment of the government's 
actual requirements.  Border Maintenance Serv., Inc., B-260954, 
B-260954.2, June 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  287 at 4.