TITLE: B-298401, Armor Group International Training, Inc., August 31, 2006
BNUMBER: B-298401
DATE: August 31, 2006
*******************************************************************
B-298401, Armor Group International Training, Inc., August 31, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Armor Group International Training, Inc.

   File: B-298401

   Date: August 31, 2006

   Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for the protester.

   Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.

   Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging a solicitation's geographic restriction is denied,
   where the restriction is reasonably found to be necessary for the agency
   to meet its needs.

   DECISION

   Armor Group International Training, Inc. protests the Department of
   State's notice that the agency intends to make a sole-source award to BSR,
   Incorporated for anti-terrorism driver training services based upon the
   agency's determination that BSR was the only known source that was capable
   of meeting the agency's requirements, which included a geographic
   restriction.

   We deny the protest.

   On May 30, 2006, State published on the Federal Business Opportunities
   (FedBizOpps) web-site its intention to negotiate and award, on a
   sole-source basis, an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contact to
   BSR for defensive training services. These training services are one part
   of an overall anti-terrorism training program, which is conducted at the
   agency's Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC) in Dunn Loring,
   Virginia. When the driver training services are required

     [s]tudents and staff are required to break from their training regimen
     at DSTC, travel to the contractor's site, for one to six days of
     training, and . . . then return to the DSTC to continue their course of
     instruction.

   Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Draft Justification of Minimum Needs, at 2.
   The FedBizOpps notice identified a number of minimum requirements,
   including that the facility for driving training must be within 80 miles
   of the United States Capitol Building, and stated that BSR was the only
   known source that could satisfy the agency's requirements. AR, Tab 3,
   FedBizOpps Notice, May 30, 2006.

   Armor, whose driving facility is approximately 145 miles from the United
   States Capitol, argues that the 80-mile geographic limitation exceeds the
   agency's needs and therefore does not provide a basis for negotiating a
   sole-source contract with BSR. In response the agency states that the
   geographic limitation was established to allow for the safe and efficient
   conduct of training. Specifically, the agency notes that the geographic
   restriction

     limits the drive time to approximately 1.5 hours each way allowing for
     students and instructors to reasonably commute for a one-day course
     without requiring an overnight stay. In 2005, the DSTC conducted 125
     courses, training 2,200 students, 1,300 of the 2,200 students attended
     one-day training courses.

   AR, Tab 7, Validation of Requirements Memorandum, at 2. The agency
   contends that permitting a distance beyond a reasonable 1-day commute
   would result in real costs to the agency for additional time required for
   training and would increase the amount of "employee productive time" lost
   due to increased travel time.[1] AR at 6, 11.

   Armor disagrees with State's judgment regarding the geographic
   restriction, arguing that there has been no showing that driving an
   additional hour each way to and from Armor's facility would affect the
   agency's training needs.

   The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) requires agencies to
   conduct their procurements using "full and open competition." 41 U.S.C.
   sect. 253(a)(1)(A) (2000). CICA, however, permits noncompetitive
   acquisitions in specified circumstances, such as when only one responsible
   source and no other supplies or services will satisfy the agency's
   requirements. See 41 U.S.C. sect. 253(c)(1). Here, as noted above, the
   agency has determined that only one source will satisfy its geographic
   restriction. An agency properly may restrict a procurement to an offeror
   or offerors within a specified area if the restriction is reasonably found
   to be necessary for the agency to meet its needs. See Canal Claiborne
   Ltd., B-244211, Sept. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 266 at 2; Pacific Dry Dock
   & Repair Co., B-237611.2, B-237751, Mar. 19, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 302 at
   6.

   We find reasonable the agency's explanation supporting the 80-mile
   geographic limitation for these driver training services, even if this
   results in a sole-source procurement. As the agency notes, more than half
   of the students taking this training attended courses lasting only a
   single day. For these students and associated DSTC staff, there must
   obviously be some limitation upon the distance that must be commuted to
   allow them to participate in a single-day course. In the agency's
   judgment, that reasonable limitation would be a distance that a student
   could drive in an hour and half each way; on its face, this judgment
   appears to be reasonable. Although Armor disagrees with the agency's
   judgment with respect to its minimum need, it has not shown it to be
   unreasonable.

   Armor also argues, for the first time in its comments, that even if the
   geographic restriction is required for students attending the single-day
   courses, there is no reason that this restriction should be applied for
   training courses that are provided over multiple days. Protester's
   Comments at 5. In this regard, the protester complains that the draft
   statement of work provided in the record for this procurement shows that
   the majority of training courses are provided over multiple days. See AR,
   Tab 2, Draft Statement of Work.

   The agency disagrees with the protester that the single-day and
   multiple-day courses are separate and discrete requirements, stating that
   all of the driver training courses are "part of an overall training
   program whose principal base is the [DSTC] facility in Dunn Loring,
   Virginia." Agency Response to Protester's Comments at 1. In this regard,
   the agency states that the "driving component of all driver training is
   embedded in the curriculum, often encompassing other high risk hard-skill
   regimens such as shooting, explosives recognition and detection, and
   reaction to attack practical exercises." Id., attach. A, Memorandum of
   DSTC Assistant Director of Training, Aug. 23, 2006, at 1. The agency notes
   that moving students and DSTC staff from the Dunn Loring location to a
   contractor facility for driving training is disruptive, and that
   increasing the amount of travel time required for a location outside the
   geographic restriction is even more disruptive and would "add additional
   man hours to training, resulting in increased instructor requirements,
   longer training courses, added support requirements, reduced training
   efficiency, degradation in program quality, and the taxing of already
   overstretched staff resources." Id. The agency concludes that performing
   the single-day and multiple-day course in differing locations was
   impracticable because "of lost instructor man hours, increased student
   travel time, and the inability to provide the required instructional,
   logistical, and role player support necessary for the safe and efficient
   conduct of critical high risk training." Id. at 2.

   In our view, although the protester disagrees with the agency's
   application of this geographic restriction to the multiple-day driver
   training courses, it has failed to rebut the agency's explanation of why
   the restriction is necessary to satisfy the agency's requirements.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Initially, the agency suggested in its report that Armor was not an
   interested party to challenge the geographic limitation because Armor
   allegedly could not satisfy other requirements identified in the notice.
   In response the protester submitted the declaration of Armor's president,
   stating that Armor's facility had been improved and satisfied all of the
   notice's requirements, except the geographic limitation. Protester's
   Comments, exh. 1, Declaration of Armor's President. The agency does not
   dispute this declaration.