TITLE: B-311234.2, Clark E. Myatt, Agency Tender Official, April 15, 2008
BNUMBER: B-311234.2
DATE: April 15, 2008
******************************************************************
B-311234.2, Clark E. Myatt, Agency Tender Official, April 15, 2008

   Decision

   Matter of: Clark E. Myatt, Agency Tender Official

   File: B-311234.2

   Date: April 15, 2008

   C. Fitch Boles IV, Esq., for the protester.
   Mark S. Christopher, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where the agency tender official protested the terms of a solicitation
   issued for purposes of conducting a public-private competition pursuant to
   Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, and the agency states that
   no acceptable private sector offers were received in response to the
   solicitation, there is no prejudice to the protester from the solicitation
   provisions at issue, since Circular A-76 requires that the agency either
   revise and reissue the solicitation, or implement the agency tender.

   DECISION

   Clark E. Myatt, the designated agency tender official (ATO) with regard to
   solicitation No. N69450-07-R-0054, which was issued by the Department of
   the Navy for purposes of conducting a public-private competition pursuant
   to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76, protests certain
   provisions of the solicitation.[1]

   We dismiss the protest.

   In September 2006, the Navy announced its intention to conduct a
   public-private competition pursuant to OMB Circular A-76 for performance
   of non-guard security support services at government installations
   nationwide; these services are currently being performed by approximately
   460 civilian and 1480 military personnel. Solicitation No.
   N69450-07-R-0054 was issued in connection with this pending competition,
   and Mr. Myatt was designated as the ATO responsible for developing and
   submitting an agency tender pursuant to the solicitation requirements.

   On February 8, 2008, prior to the solicitation's initial closing date, the
   ATO submitted a protest to this Office, challenging certain provisions of
   the solicitation which mandated a particular method for calculating the
   costs of performance by the government's most efficient organization
   (MEO). The ATO maintained that the solicitation's cost calculation
   provisions were illogical and unfair.

   Following submission of that protest, this Office conducted various
   telephone conference calls with the ATO, the ATO's counsel, agency
   counsel, and the contracting officer. During these calls, agency counsel
   advised our Office that the agency had extended the solicitation's closing
   date to March 20, and was further considering whether it would amend the
   solicitation provisions regarding calculation of MEO costs. Accordingly,
   we dismissed the ATO's February 8 protest.[2] Clark E. Myatt, B-311234,
   Mar. 6, 2008.

   On March 19, the ATO submitted this protest, again challenging, among
   other things, the solicitation's cost methodology for comparing the MEO's
   costs with private offerors' costs, and noting that the agency had neither
   addressed the ATO's previously identified concerns, nor further extended
   the solicitation's March 20 closing date.

   By letter to our Office dated April 3, the agency states that it did not
   receive any acceptable private sector offers in response to the
   solicitation. Accordingly, the agency maintains that "the MEO cannot
   suffer any competitive prejudice" from the contested terms of the
   solicitation under which the competition was to be conducted. We agree.

   In situations where no acceptable private sector offers are submitted, OMB
   Circular A-76 directs that the agency must do one of two things: revise
   and reissue the solicitation, or implement the agency tender. OMB Circular
   A-76, attach. B, sect. D.4.d (May 29, 2003). Under either alternative,
   there is no prejudice to the ATO resulting from the terms of the
   previously issued solicitation.[3] Since competitive prejudice is a
   necessary element of any viable protest, we have no basis to further
   review the ATO's allegations. See, e.g., OK Produce; Coast Citrus
   Distrib., B-299058, B-299058.2, Feb. 2, 2007, 2007 para. CPD 31 at 6;
   CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2, B-282075.3, Mar. 15, 2000, 2000 CPD para.
   63 at 10.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] An ATO is "[a]n inherently governmental agency official with
   decision-making authority who is responsible for the agency tender and
   represents the agency tender during source selection." OMB Circular A-76,
   attach. D (May 29, 2003).

   [2] Where an agency has not determined how it will proceed with regard to
   a particular issue, a protest based on the protester's projection of how
   the agency will proceed is premature. See, e.g., Global Solutions Network,
   Inc., B-294054, B-294054.2, Aug. 10, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 161 at 1 n.1.

   [3] In the event the agency takes subsequent actions which create the
   potential for prejudice to the MEO, the ATO may thereafter file a timely
   protest challenging such actions.