TITLE:  Champion Business Services, Inc., B-283927, January 24, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-283927
DATE:  January 24, 2000
**********************************************************************
Champion Business Services, Inc., B-283927, January 24, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Champion Business Services, Inc.

File: B-283927

Date: January 24, 2000

Carol E. McCallister for the protester.

Scarlett D. Grose, Esq., General Services Administration, and Kevin R.
Harber, Esq., and John W. Klein, Esq., Small Business Administration, for
the agencies.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency's sole-source award of contracts for services on a monthly basis
through the Small Business Administration under the section 8(a) program,
while the agency was developing specifications for a 1-year contract to be
awarded on a sole-source basis through the section 8(a) program is not
inconsistent with the provision in Federal Acquisition Regulation
sect. 19.805-1(c) that prohibits an agency from dividing a proposed section 8(a)
requirement into several separate action in order to avoid the $3 million
threshold for competing such contracts.

2. Agency is not required to include four 1-year options in a solicitation
for a 1-year contract for services under the section 8(a) program so that
the contract's estimated value would exceed the $3 million threshold which
would require that the requirement be competed.

DECISION

Champion Business Services, Inc. protests the sole-source award by the
General Services Administration (GSA) of a number of indefinite-quantity
contracts with 1-month periods, as well as GSA's issuance of a solicitation
on a sole-source basis with a 1-year performance period, through the Small
Business Administration (SBA) under the section 8(a) program to Gonzales
Consulting Services, Inc. for dispatch and security system monitoring
services.

We deny the protest.

In November 1996, GSA awarded a contract for the dispatch, security and
monitoring services to RMES Communications, Inc. Agency Report at 1.
Although the contract provided for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year
options, GSA determined during the first option year that its requirements
were no longer being met by the RMES contract and decided not to exercise
the second option. Id.

GSA contacted SBA at that time and requested that SBA identify a contractor
participating in the section 8(a) program "that could perform on a
month-to-month basis, pending [GSA's] development of appropriate
specifications." Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. SBA responded by
identifying Gonzales as an eligible potential contractor and informing GSA
that it "need not submit anything further." Id. at 2. GSA subsequently
entered into the first of a series of indefinite-delivery contracts, each
with a performance period of 1 month, with Gonzales for the services. Id. at
1-2.

Since December 1, 1998, the monthly sole-source contracts have been awarded
to, and performed by, Gonzales through SBA's section 8(a) program. Id.;
Agency Report, exhs. 4-15 (GSA month-to-month solicitation/contract/order
for commercial items issued to Gonzales Consulting Services, Inc.). GSA
explains that it has been developing adequate technical specifications for a
solicitation to be issued on a sole-source basis under the section 8(a)
program for a 1-year contract, and has now issued such a solicitation and
offered the procurement to the section 8(a) program with an "offering letter
listing all parties that have expressed an interest in the procurement." [1]
Contracting Officer's Statement at 2; Supplemental Agency Report at 1.

The protester argues that, in awarding the 1-month contracts to Gonzales,
the agency has improperly exceeded "the six (6) month limit" imposed on such
awards by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 37.111. Protest;
Protester's Comments, Nov. 24, 1999, at 4.

FAR sect. 37.111 states that "[a]ward[s] of contracts for recurring and
continuing service requirements are often delayed due to circumstances
beyond the control of contracting officers," provides that contracting
officers "may include an option clause . . . in solicitations and contracts
which will enable the Government to require continued performance of any
services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract," and
states that extensions under such an option clause "shall not exceed 6
months." Because FAR sect. 37.111 only applies to a contracting agency's
extension of performance under an existing service contract, whereas the
record here evidences that GSA has issued and awarded a series of contracts
to Gonzales on a month-to-month basis rather than extending performance
under an existing contract, this protest basis has no merit.

The protester also complains that GSA has continued to issue and award
1-month contracts in order to "dodge and circumvent" the requirement in
FAR sect. 19.805-1(a)(2) and 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.506(a)(1)(ii) that acquisitions for
services offered to SBA under the section 8(a) program be awarded on the
basis of competition if the anticipated contract price exceeds $3 million.

As pointed out by GSA, each monthly contract awarded to Gonzales had an
estimated value of approximately $93,000, such that even if the requirements
had been contracted for a full year, the approximate total price of
$1,116,000 would be less than the $3 million price at which competition is
required. Agency Report at 3. Moreover, SBA explains that the provision set
forth at FAR sect. 19.805-1(c) and 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.506(a)(4), which states that
an agency cannot divide a proposed section 8(a) requirement with an
estimated value exceeding the applicable threshold for competition of $3
million into several separate actions for lesser amounts in order to use the
section 8(a) sole-source procedures to award to a single contractor, is
inapplicable here because the acquisitions challenged by the protester are
"stop-gap measure[s] designed to procure necessary services until such time
as an appropriate solicitation can be drafted and issued." SBA Report at 3.
SBA concludes that GSA's action "does not appear to pose any threat to the
aims sought to be advanced by the competitive threshold requirement." Id. We
find SBA's analysis and conclusion reasonable. [2]

The protester argues that the solicitation issued by GSA providing for the
award of a 1-year contract under the section 8(a) program on a sole-source
basis should instead provide for the award of a 1-year contract with four
1-year options on a competitive basis. In this regard, the record reflects
that the value of a 1-year contract is below the $3 million threshold at
which competition is required, whereas a contract providing for a 1-year
base period with four 1-year options would exceed the $3 million threshold
and would thus have to be competed among eligible section 8(a) program
participants in accordance with 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.506(a). Agency Report at 3.
The protester maintains that the "requirement has been truncated into
smaller one-year awards in order to circumvent the competitive threshold."
Protester's Comments, Nov. 24, 1999, at 3.

GSA explains that the "Mega Centers are a new and developing program" and
that because of this "extensive changes" to the agency's requirements "are a
distinct possibility." Agency Report at 2. For example, the record reflects
that, while the predecessor contract provided for a workforce of
approximately 9 full-time equivalent positions, the current specification
provides for a workforce of approximately 45 positions. Letter from
Protester's to GAO 1 (Nov. 15, 1999); Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.
The agency concludes that the procurement of the services on a yearly basis
is in its best interests because it "gives the agency the ability to change
its requirements and expand the scope of the contract in the future without
concern regarding out-of-scope changes." Agency Report at 2.

The record reflects that GSA has a reasonable basis for issuing the
solicitation providing for the award of a 1-year contract--that is, that the
Mega Centers program is new and undergoing considerable change, which may
well lead to extensive changes over the next few years in the agency's
requirements for the dispatch and security monitoring services under
consideration. [3] Under these circumstances, we cannot find that the agency
is required by 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.506(a)(4) to issue a solicitation providing
for a performance period of more than 1 year.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. During the course of this protest, GSA awarded a 1-year sole-source
contract to Gonzales under the 8(a) program without advising SBA in its
offering letter of all parties that expressed interest in the procurement as
required by 13 C.F.R. sect. 124.502(c)(14) (1999). Subsequently, GSA remedied
this problem by terminating that contract award and submitting an offering
letter to SBA for the 1-year requirement which mentioned all parties,
including Champion, who expressed interest in the procurement.

2. The protester also complains that GSA failed to "meet[] the processing
requirements for sole source 8(a) awards" when it initially contacted SBA
and subsequently awarded Gonzales the monthly contracts, because it did not
send an offering letter to SBA as assertedly required by 13 C.F.R.
sect. 124.502, and that SBA's oral advice to GSA that this letter was
unnecessary for such interim contracts was inconsistent with this
regulation. Protester's Comments, Nov. 24, 1999, at 2; Protester's Comments,
Jan. 12, 2000, at 1, 4. Since the protester does not claim that it was
prejudiced in any way by GSA's alleged failure here, we will not consider
this aspect of Champion's protest further. Geonex Corp., B-274390.2, June
13, 1997, 97-1 CPD para.  225 at 4-5.

3. Contrary to the protester's assertion, an agency is not required to plan
to make contract modifications to account for the reasonably expected
changes to the contract requirements simply to extend the contract term so
that it will exceed the $3 million threshold.