TITLE:  Aberdeen Technical Services--Modification of Recommendation, B-283727.3, August 22, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-283727.3
DATE:  August 22, 2001
**********************************************************************
Aberdeen Technical Services--Modification of Recommendation, B-283727.3,
August 22, 2001

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 para. 46.

The Army has not yet implemented the recommendation set out in our February
2000 decision. The agency has advised our Office that, while it still plans
to resolicit, there will be additional delays in doing so because of changes
in the Army's requirements, requiring that the original solicitation be
canceled. The Army estimates that a new solicitation will be issued in early
2002, some 2 years after issuance of our decision and recommendation. On
June 19, 2001, we advised the relevant congressional committees that, in our
view, this lengthy delay constituted a failure to implement our
recommendation. See 31 U.S.C. sect. 3554(e)(1) (1994 and Supp. IV 1998).

In view of the cancellation of the RFP, which has deprived ATS of an
opportunity to compete for the scope of services contemplated in the
solicitation at issue in the protest, ATS requests that we modify our
earlier recommendation to allow ATS to be reimbursed the costs of preparing
its proposal. The Army has no objections to ATS's request. Under these
circumstances, we modify our recommendation to provide that ATS should be
reimbursed the costs of preparing its proposal under the canceled
solicitation. [1] 31 U.S.C. sect. 3554(c)(1), 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(2) (2001).

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. We understand that ATS has already submitted its certified claim for such
costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred in preparing its
proposal, and that the Army is considering the claim.