New Triad's
protest fails to state a valid basis of protest. In Aleut
Facilities Support Servs., LLC, B-401925, Oct. 13, 2009,
2009 CPD para. 202, we considered a similar protest
challenging the agency's decision to cancel a solicitation
to perform work in-house on the basis that the cost
comparison performed by the agency violated DOD's
in-sourcing guidance (as well as that the requirement was
not one given priority under section 2463). We held that
the protest failed to state a valid basis of protest,
finding that section 2463 does not require a cost
comparison and that, since the cited guidance issued
pursuant to section 2463 was only internal DOD policy, the
assertion that the agency did not adhere to that policy
guidance is not a basis for challenging the agency's
actions. Id. at 3-4; see Hughes Space and Commc'n Co.;
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., B‑266225.6 et al.,
Apr. 15, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 199 at 17; Indian Res.
Int'l, Inc., B‑256671, July 18, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 29 at
3. Although DTM 09‑007 was issued subsequent to our
decision in that case, it likewise is only internal agency
guidance; thus, the alleged violation of DTM 09‑007 is not
a valid basis of protest. (Triad
Logistics Services Corporation, B-403726, November 24,
2010) (pdf)
The jurisdiction of our
Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. sections
3551-3556 (2000 & Supp. IV 2004). Our role in resolving
bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements
for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy
and Research Servs., B‑278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998,
98-1 CPD para. 69 at 4. To achieve this end, our Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(c)(4) and
(f)(2008), require that a protest include a detailed
statement of the legal and factual grounds for the
protest. This requirement contemplates that protesters
will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence
sufficient for this Office to reasonably conclude that a
violation of statute or regulation has occurred. See,
e.g., Saturn Landscape Plus, Inc., B-297450.3, Apr. 18,
2006, 2006 CPD para. 66 at 9. Bare assertions that an
award was improper, with neither evidence nor explanation
of the protester’s theory regarding the alleged violation,
are insufficient to satisfy this Office’s requirements.
Id.; Siebe Envtl. Controls, B-275999.2, Feb. 12, 1997,
97-1 CPD para. 70 at 2.
Here, as discussed above, View One protests that,
notwithstanding the agency’s undisputed conclusion that
there was only a “very slight” difference in the technical
merit of the two proposals, and the undisputed conclusion
that View One’s cost/price was more than 8.5 % higher than
the awardee’s, the agency must have failed to perform a
proper cost/technical tradeoff. This bare allegation, with
no further evidence or even explanation of View One’s
theory, fails to comply with the requirement that a
protest provide a sufficiently detailed statement of the
legal and factual grounds for the protest, 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.1.(c)(4) and (f); accordingly, it is insufficient to
warrant further consideration by this Office. (View
One, Inc., B-400346, July 30, 2008) (pdf)
Our Bid
Protest Regulations require that a protest include a
detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds of a
protest, 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) (2003), and that the
grounds stated be legally sufficient. 4 C.F.R. §
21.1(f). These requirements contemplate that protesters
provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence that
the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency
action. Military Agency Servs. Pty., Ltd.,
B-290414 et al., Aug. 1, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 130 at 4
n.4. Here, as shown below, AATS's protest adequately sets
forth the protester's assertion that the agency's price
evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the
solicitation, and resulted in the wrongful selection of
Mitkem instead of AATS for one of the awarded contracts.
In other words, AATS's protest here does sufficiently
allege that the agency took particular actions and that
these actions were contrary to law or regulation.[4]
See Charleston Marine Containers, Inc.,
B-283393, Nov. 8, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 84 at 4. (American
Analytical & Technical Services, Inc., B-292100, June
11, 2003) |
